Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT (MILITARY EXPENDITURE)

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals have been made to the Committee of 18 Nations in Geneva for the agreed limitation of military expenditure pending the signature of the disarmament treaty.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): In a Memorandum presented to the Geneva Disarmament Conference on 28th January, the Soviet Government proposed an agreement "to reduce the military budgets of States by 10 to 15 per cent." On 13th February the Brazilian delegation submitted a draft resolution which requested all Governments to make reductions in their military expenditure comparable to those recently made by the United States and the Soviet Union, and to devote not less than 20 per cent.

of the savings to a fund for the benefit of developing countries.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister of State represent to his right hon. Friend that, even if these more ambitious proposals do not succeed, a simple freeze of expenditure would be much the most important preliminary or partial measure that could be adopted and the most likely to be carried through? Will he instruct the Committee of 18 Nations to prepare a resolution for the General Assembly to adopt a plan?

Mr. Thomas: I do not think it is quite as simple as that. We would naturally be very happy to see military expenditure either frozen or reduced all round, but we think this should come from concrete measures of disarmament as part of an agreed programme providing for the comprehensive and balanced disarmament of all nations. The budgetary questions are very complex and we have proposed to the Geneva Conference that we should set up an expert study group to look into them.

Mr. Noel-Baker: We shall be grateful if budgetary limitation is studied, but does the hon. Gentleman not agree that as a preliminary measure my suggestion would be very simple and important?

Mr. Thomas: I agree that it is a matter well worth looking at, but, as a preliminary, we should go into the very complicated question of the study of the various budgets, and this we have proposed to the Geneva Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAMBODIA

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations between Her Majesty's Government, the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the other Governments concerned for a conference on the neutralisation of Cambodia.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he is now taking in support of the neutrality of Cambodia.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am continuing my efforts to establish a basis acceptable to all concerned for an international conference on Cambodia. Unfortunately, not all the Governments concerned are yet ready to take part in such a conference.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the very critical issue of the neutrality of Cambodia in this dangerous area of South-East Asia, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why so many months have passed since Prince Sihanouk first proposed a 14-Power conference? Could he also say why the proposal is now being made that this should be limited to a four-Power conference of the United States, Thailand, South Vietnam and Cambodia, when three of those nations would not accept the position of neutrality and are tied to one of the Power blocs? Would the right hon. Gentleman really give his earnest attention to try to bring about a solution to this problem?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. There has been a great many exchanges, and Prince Sihanouk himself has now acknowledged that it would be difficult to call a conference. He has postponed his demand for one at any rate till after his visit to France in June. The idea of a preliminary conference was not an alternative to the main conference at Geneva. The idea was that these nations principally concerned might get together on such problems as frontiers which might be dealt with preparatory to the main conference.

Mr. Mayhew: Is it not plain that the desire for neutrality is genuine and

understandable? How does it come about that by resisting the Prince s procedural suggestions for the conference we have incurred his very strong resentment and suspicion, when our interests are in common?

Mr. Butler: Our interests certainly are in common to obtain the neutrality of Cambodia and to reassure the Cambodians in this respect. But there is a difficulty in summoning a conference when certain people do not wish to attend it. It is better to try to obtain their concurrence to attend a conference before one calls it.

Mr. Warbey: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the view that North Vietnam is not a principally interested party in this matter?

Mr. Butler: I would not like to comment on North Vietnam.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA

Political Prisoners

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to induce the South African Government to abandon the current trial of political prisoners as requested in the resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly on 11th October, 1963.

Mr. P. Thomas: In response to the request contained in this resolution, Her Majesty's Ambassador in Pretoria has told the South African Government why we thought it appropriate to vote for it and has drawn their attention to the strength of public opinion in the United Kingdom on this issue.

Mrs. Castle: Does the hon. Gentleman think that that tepid action is really sufficient to carry out the instructions of the United Nations resolution for which we voted, and will he tell the House what further steps the Government intend to take to induce South Africa to abandon this arbitrary trial and to release all political prisoners unconditionally? Will he now impose a total embargo on the export of arms to South Africa?

Mr. Thomas: No. We thought that the action we took was appropriate, in accordance with the terms of the particular article of the resolution.

Emigrants

Mr. Taverne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are taken to warn prospective emigrants to South Africa of the political uncertainties likely to await them in South Africa.

Mr. P. Thomas: None, Sir. It would not be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to seek to advise prospective emigrants to any country on the political conditions in that country. If prospective emigrants approach us, we naturally attempt to answer their questions.

Mr. Taverne: Does not the Minister agree that it is undesirable that many people should leave this country with their families for an area where the bitterest conflict is likely? If he agrees that it is undesirable, will he reconsider the position and find some way of making sure that families seeking to emigrate there do so at least with their eyes open?

Mr. Thomas: I think that it is undesirable for any person or family to emigrate without informing themselves beforehand of the conditions in that country.

Mr. Rankin: Is it known among prospective emigrants that they can approach our own Foreign Office? Is not the usual approach to the Minister concerned with the country to which the person wants entry?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, that may be so, but it would not be appropriate for the Foreign Office or Her Majesty's Government to offer gratuitous advice unless approached. It is up to people who wish to emigrate to ascertain for themselves beforehand, I suggest, exactly what they are letting themselves in for.

Sentenced Persons

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government have taken following the recommendation of the United Nations Special Committee

on Apartheid urging the Government of the Republic of South Africa to refrain from the execution of persons sentenced for opposition to its racial policies.

Mr. P. Thomas: None, Sir. I understand, however, that on 27th March the Secretary-General of the United Nations addressed an appeal to the South African Government to spare the lives of those facing execution or death sentences for acts arising from their opposition to the South African Government's racial policies.

Mr. Brockway: Exactly. Has not the hon. Gentleman already said that the Government have indicated to the Republican Government of South Africa the feeling in this country about political prisoners? Is it not much graver when over 50 of these men, because of their resistance to apartheid, have already been sentenced to death? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that five men of great integrity and reputation are being charged with the prospect of sentences of death? Does he not realise that this will cause a protest by the moral opinion of the world as great as there was against the Sharpeville massacre? Ought he not, as a representative of our people, to express opposition to this charge?

Mr. Thomas: I have already told the hon. Gentleman and the House that Her Majesty's Ambassador made representations to the South African Government and expressed to them our reasons why we voted for the resolution in the United Nations and the depth of public opinion in this country. As to the number of people who have been sentenced to death, I do not believe that anyone has been sentenced to death for an act which has not involved the death of somebody else—

Mr. Brockway: Sabotage.

Mr. Thomas: —which includes sabotage and murder. As to the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, which referred to the Rivonia trial, no sentence of death has yet been passed and it would be quite inappropriate for Her Majesty's Government to make representations about a trial which is still proceeding.

Miss Lee: Do we infer from the reply which we have just been given that


the Government's present policy towards South Africa is having no result whatever? Will the Government, therefore, consider sharpening their sanctions and, above all, will they refrain from making the sort of statement which we have now heard, which is more than half an apology for the actions of the South African Government?

Mr. Thomas: I do not think that that is so. If the hon. Lady reads what I have said, she will see that I was replying to her hon. Friend's suggestion that 50 people had been sentenced to death because of their opposition to apartheid. Therefore, I mentioned—and I said that I thought I was right—that no sentence of death had been imposed where the charge did not involve the death of another person. As to our attitude to the policy of apartheid, we have consistently made our position quite clear. In the United Nations, when the resolution which has been referred to was passed, I was present and I made the position of Her Majesty's Government clear to the General Assembly.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS FORCE

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he will make an approach to Great Britain's North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies to obtain agreement to the earmarking and training of 2,000 British troops in Germany for a possible future United Nations Organisation force, and to a contribution on a similar basis from those ships of the Royal Navy now allocated to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation;
(2) what approach he has received from the Secretary-General of the United Nations for the earmarking of British troops under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in Germany for use at short notice as a United Nations Organisation force.

Mr. P. Thomas: We are ready to discuss with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and with our allies the idea of earmarking British units for United Nations peace-keeping purposes. Where these troops would come from would be one of the things which we

would need to consider; the Secretary-General has himself made no proposals to Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Digby: Is it not essential that before these proposals go any further there should be an absolutely clear distinction in everybody's mind between earmarking and allotting these troops? Whereas the Leader of the Opposition has given his support for the earmarking of troops from N.A.T.O., is he aware that his position with regard to the ships of the Royal Navy is still far from clear?

Mr. Speaker: The question is not intelligible. As put forward it asks Minister A whether a member of the Opposition, a person called B, is aware of something or other. It cannot be answered.

Sir J. Eden: Can my hon. Friend give any indication of what might be the attitude of our N.A.T.O. allies towards this, and whether we can expect any form of support from them—from all of them or from some of them only—in a project of this kind?

Mr. Thomas: The matter so far has not been discussed with our N.A.T.O. allies, and I should not like to anticipate what might be their reactions. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we intend to discuss this matter with them and also with the Secretary-General.

Mr. Shinwell: Although the concept is an admirable one, is the hon. Gentleman aware that France makes a negligible contribution, if any, to N.A.T.O.? Is she likely to make any contribution to the United Nations?

Mr. Thomas: I would not like to anticipate what France's reaction might be until the question has been discussed with her.

Mr. Kershaw: Is there any particular advantage in earmarking any troops for any particular mission in the future? Would it not be better to undertake an obligation, if that is desired, and allocate troops as they are necessary at the time?

Mr. Thomas: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said when answering Questions the other day, he


foresaw difficulties in earmarking particular troops in particular areas for this purpose; nevertheless, it was something that we would look into.

Mr. A. Henderson: Is it not a fact that at least three of our N.A.T.O. allies have already agreed to the ear-marking of troops for a stand-by force—Canada, Denmark and Norway? Why does the Minister of State suggest that none of our allies has yet stated its position?

Mr. Thomas: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I said that the matter had not been discussed with our allies in N.A.T.O. as yet. There are difficulties, because it has been considered inappropriate in the past for permanent representatives on the Security Council to earmark troops for this purpose, but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the other day, we shall look into this matter and discuss it with the Secretary-General.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (CONTRIBUTIONS)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he is now taking to help secure payment of their dues by defaulting members of the United Nations.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the position at the United Nations of those member nations who have failed to pay their contributions to the major peace-keeping operations; and what policy is being pursued by Her Majesty's Government on this issue.

Mr. P. Thomas: In Her Majesty's Government's view, any member State which, by declining to pay its due share of the expenses of the United Nations, falls two years in arrears will, under Article 19 of the Charter, forfeit its voting rights in the General Assembly.
The present problem stems from the failure of the Soviet Union and certain other countries to contribute to United Nations peace-keeping operations in the Congo and the Middle East. The British and United States Permanent Representatives to the United Nations

represented to their Soviet colleague in New York last month the importance to the United Nations as a whole of supporting the full application of Article 19 and the consequent need for Soviet peace-keeping arrears to be met. They put to their Soviet colleague certain proposals which might facilitate the financing of future peace-keeping operations.

Mr. Mayhew: What were these proposals and why were they made public? Was it wise to make these proposals formally before getting any indication that the Russians would respond favourably?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman asks whether it is wise to make these proposals public. They were referred to in certain newspapers, and I can assure him that they were not made public by Her Majesty's Government. I agree with him that full details of these proposals, which in any event were tentative, should remain confidential pending a reply from the Soviet Union to the Anglo-American approach.

Mr. Prentice: Would the Minister confirm that, under Article 19, if countries are more than two years in arrears the Chairman of the General Assembly would be in order to refuse them voting rights without any Motion being necessary? Would the Government support that? Would the Minister also make it clear that that attitude applies to all countries; in their words, that we take the same view of the French arrears as we do of the Soviet arrears? This is not a cold war question. It is a question of our wanting to uphold the Charter and the rule of the International Court in these matters.

Mr. Thomas: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not intended that this should be a cold war matter, and I know that it would be the wish of everyone to try, if possible, to reach a solution of this matter. In our view, Article 19 applies equally to all countries which might be in arrear for two years with their payments.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that we are sympathetic to the intention of the Government, but certain proposals were made to the Soviet Union which have now been published? They are


important. Will he put them in the OFFICIAL REPORT? Do they not involve some form of strengthening the Security Council against the General Assembly?

Mr. Thomas: I do not think that it would be appropriate to put these proposals in full in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Perhaps I can say that, in general, the proposals would involve the General Assembly initiating a peace-keeping operation only after it had been discussed in the Security Council and the latter had been unable to act on it. Financial assessments for the peace-keeping operation, perhaps according to some special scale, would be recommended to the General Assembly by a peace-keeping finance committee on which the larger financial contributors would be adequately represented.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST GERMANS (TRAVEL VISAS)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the changed arrangements for the provision of travel visas for citizens from East Germany who wish to travel to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Oram: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decision was recently reached by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council about travel facilities for East Germans to North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries; and when it will take effect.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Mathew): I would refer the right hon. and hon. Members to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen) on 9th April. The adjustments to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation policy came into effect on 2nd April.

Mr. Shinwell: The answer which my hon. Friend had the other day requires further definition. Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the invitation from the Durham Miners' Association to East German miners to attend the miners' gala on 18th July will now be acceptable to the Travel Bureau in West Berlin, and can he say as a matter of definition what is meant by "non-political"? Does it mean that nobody

can come to this country from East Germany unless he has divested himself of all political ideas?

Mr. Mathew: On the question of the particular case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, each application will be treated by the Allied Travel Office in West Berlin on its merits and I cannot, of course, anticipate what decision will be taken. I do not know whether the miners concerned are trade unionists, but the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Communist trade unions are highly political bodies. The right hon. Gentleman also asked what "political" means in this sense. It is a general description. I should say that purporting to represent the Soviet zone as a sovereign or national entity would be considered by the Travel Office as undesirable, and so would public propaganda on behalf of the zonal régime.

Mr. Shinwell: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Durham miners' gala has had representatives from the Soviet Union, from Hungary and from various satellite countries—from Yugoslavia, for example—on many occasions? What is the difficulty about a few miners coming to attend the Durham miners' gala? Does the hon. Gentleman imagine that it will start a revolution in this country?

Mr. Mathew: As I have said, this is a matter which will be decided by the Allied Travel Office.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Oram: Will the hon. Gentleman clear up the question about groups as against individuals? There was a reference to permission being granted only to individuals. The hon. Gentleman will recall that when I raised this matter on the Adjournment some weeks ago I had particularly in mind the question of a children's choir. May we take it that such a group is now likely to meet with no difficulty? What about football teams? Does it mean that each player must make an individual application? If this is so, is a right-winger likely to have better consideration than a left-winger?

Mr. Mathew: It can, of course, include groups if they can satisfy the Allied Travel Office that the intention in sending


the group is not an intention by the so-called D.D.R. to make political propaganda. As regards East German sporting teams, national teams, I apprehend, will not, on the whole, get permission whereas local teams will, and so will individual sportsmen and groups from East Germany who are participating in an all-German team.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Have not the Government got into an awful mess by these attempts to make very fine and unreal distinctions? If it is decided that it is right to move in this direction, why do not the Government move to a rather more logical position?

Mr. Mathew: This is the result of a decision in N.A.T.O. after very long and very full discussion and consultation. The right hon. Gentleman ought to bear in mind that we are making it easier, not harder, for East Germans to travel out of East Germany. It is the East German authorities who refuse six out of seven applications by giving no exit permits; they are imprisoning the mass of their population.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN OFFICE (CIVIL SERVANTS)

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish in HANSARD the total number of civil servants employed in the Foreign Office on 1st October, 1951, and 1st October, 1963, together with their respective costs.

Mr. Mathew: The staff employed in the Foreign Office on 1st October, 1951, totaled 1,722, at an annual cost of £1,003,250. The corresponding figures for 1st October, 1963, were 1,761 staff, at an annual cost of £2,168,000.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the fact that, for the past thirteen years, and getting on for fourteen years now, we have been promised that the Government would drastically reduce the whole of the Civil Service, including the Foreign Office, and its costs, may we have some idea of when this is likely to happen? Is it likely to happen before the election, whether in the autumn or whenever it may be?

Mr. Mathew: I think that the hon. Gentleman can answer that as well as I can. What he must bear in mind is that, although the period for which I have

given the figures has been most difficult in international relations, and although Her Majesty's Government have entered into diplomatic relations with 22 additional countries during that time, the extra work at home has been largely absorbed by the existing staff at the Foreign Office.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Arthur Lewis, for the next Question, please.

Mr. Lewis: The Minister read that brief very well, but will he answer my supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Gentleman for the next one, please.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ OPERATIONS (DOCUMENTS)

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now agree to the publication of all papers and documents in the possession of Her Majesty's Government in connection with the Suez operations.

Mr. Mathew: No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend told the hon. Gentleman in answer to a similar Question on 26th November last, the general rule is that official documents are not normally opened to public inspection until they become fifty years old.

Mr. Lewis: But as, since then, the Prime Minister has said, "Let us have frank speaking", and, of course, the electorate would like to know all about it, may we have it before the election?

Mr. Mathew: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that there is this rule. It has been in operation for only a comparatively short time. I think that we had better give it a trial before we succumb to any modifications urged by him or anybody else.

Mr. Stratton Mills: At the same time as considering this point, will my hon. Friend consider whether he might include the Cabinet documents which resulted in the decision of the Labour Government to go ahead with the manufacture of nuclear weapons?

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (U.N. PEACE-KEEPING FORCE)

Mr. F. L. Mallalieu: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose to the Security


Council that steps be taken to seek to give the United Nations peace-keeping force in Cyprus legal competence over individuals on the island when the latter are impeding the United Nations mandate.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. I do not think this necessary. The Secretary-General has it fully in mind that the United Nations force must have adequate powers to fulfil its functions and he has concluded a Status of Forces Agreement with the Cyprus Government which defines the relationship between the force and the Cypriots. This agreement, which has been circulated as a Security Council document, is available in the Library of the House.

Mr. Mallalieu: Since none of us knows what the mandate is which the Secretary-General of the United Nations has given to the United Nations troops, could not Her Majesty's Government at least say that they think it desirable that the troops should be able to disarm persons who are against the peace in the particular area to which they are called? Must they just wait to be shot at before they can act?

Mr. Butler: That question was Question No. 13 which was not called, but which I shall answer with Question No. 22. I am referring only to the Status of Forces Agreement in this matter. I shall be answering the hon. and learned Gentleman in a few minutes.

Mr. M. Foot: How was it decided whether the Foreign Secretary should answer this Question or whether it should be handed over to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be better if he were left to deal with this Cyprus problem instead of having the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations barging in on it?

Mr. Butler: Cyprus is a Commonwealth country and my right hon. Friend is Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations; hence, he answers Questions on Cyprus. When Questions relating to international relations concerned with Cyprus are put to me, I have great pleasure in answering.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made with the creation

of a peace-keeping force for Cyprus; what are the terms of reference to guide the mediator; and whether the terms have been agreed by both Cypriots and Turks.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The United Nations force was established operationally on 27th March. It will be composed of contingents provided by Britain, Canada, Ireland, Finland and Sweden. Of these, the British and Canadian contingents are already carrying out their duties. I understand that the bulk of the Swedish contingent is in the course of joining the force in Cyprus, together with advance elements of the other contingents. The force is expected to be fully constituted later this month.
As I shall explain in answer to Question No. 22, the United Nations Secretary-General has said that he does not intend to elaborate on the terms of reference of the mediator set out in paragraph 7 of the Security Council resolution of 4th March. That resolution was accepted by all the interested parties.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, since the United Nations accepted responsibility for peace-keeping activities in Cyprus, we have been kept completely in the dark about the rôle of our troops in Cyprus? Nor have we any information about whether both the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots have accepted the terms of reference. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in these circumstances, and particularly in view of the build-up of 30,000 Greek Cypriot troops, it is time that the United Nations declared publicly what the terms of reference are and what the rôle of our troops there is likely to be and, if not, to withdraw our troops from Cyprus?

Mr. Butler: I was to have dealt with this matter in answer to Question No. 13, but the hon. Member who put it down was not here to call it and I shall, therefore, be answering it with Question No. 22 and some other Questions on this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman will wait until then, he will get the answer.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will seek to secure the agreement of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to publication of the note outlining the functions of the United Nations force in Cyprus, sent by the Secretary-General on 17th March to all the Governments concerned; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Gordon Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has approached the Secretary-General of the United Nations about the publication of the terms of reference of the United Nations force in Cyprus.

Sir J. Eden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he was consulted as to the general objectives of the United Nations Emergency Force in Cyprus; and if he will now give the terms of reference in support of which British troops have been committed.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what directives have been given by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to its force in Cyprus; and what are the mediator's terms of reference.

Mr. R. A. Butler: As the House will be aware, the general scope and purpose of the United Nations operations in Cyprus are laid down in the Security Council resolution of the 4th March. On the basis of the mandate contained in this resolution the Secretary-General has prepared a general directive to the United Nations force commander in Cyprus and the latter has issued an operational directive to his troops.
I have been in touch with the Secretary-General and explained that while it would be understood in the House that it is not the normal military practice to disclose the contents of orders to commanders in the field, yet there is a general desire for greater information of the conditions under which our troops are serving. The Secretary-General has informed me that he regards both his own directive to General Gyani and the latter's operational directives as confidential documents. This is in accordance with the procedure followed in the Congo operations.
In reply to questions submitted by the United Kingdom Mission in New York, the Secretariat of the United Nations has now made available an aide memoire relating to the function and operation of the United Nations peace-keeping force in Cyprus, including conditions in which armed force may be used and I have arranged for a copy of this document to be placed in the Library of the House. In the view of Her Majesty's Government it provides acceptable bases for the conduct of the operations in which our troops are participating under United Nations command.
As regards the terms of reference of the mediator, the United Nations Secretary-General has said that he does not intend to elaborate on those set out in paragraph 7 of the Security Council resolution of the 4th March. His purpose is to leave the mediator as free as possible in his actions.

Mr. Mallalieu: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is at present no world law under which United Nations troops should act if called into a particular trouble spot, and do not recent uncertainties in Cyprus, and before that in the Congo, indicate very strongly that it is desirable to have that world law known in advance—for instance, when they may disarm people who are disturbing the peace? Will the Government take steps to initiate discussions with a view to an agreement on minimum world law, which is necessary if these troops are efficiently to carry out their functions?

Mr. Butler: I think that if the hon. and learned Gentleman reads the aide mémoire he will find the answer to most of the points he has raised, and secondly, if he will read the Status of Forces Agreement, which I can make available to him, he will see the relationship of the forces to the ordinary civilian population of Cyprus. These two documents do, I think, go a very long way to answering his question.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Whatever the aide mémoire may or may not say, is it not revolting to the average thinking British people that British troops should almost daily be arrested by Cypriots? If this cannot be rectified, are we not justified in withdrawing our troops to the base and letting them get on with it?

Mr. Butler: Our troops have had a great many most aggravating circumstances to put up with, but on the whole I am sure that up to date we have done the right thing both in going into Cyprus and now in taking part in the United Nations force. We must hope and pray that the circumstances and the aide mémoire will enable our troops to act with dignity and with success.

Sir J. Eden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House will welcome the answer he gave and will look forward to having an opportunity of studying the aide méemoire, but could he say at this stage whether this aide mémoire will cover intervention from outside by reinforcements for the dissident elements, notably any which may be coming from other N.A.T.O. countries?

Mr. Butler: No. It relates to the activities of the United Nations forces, and these are broader questions which I shall be glad to answer if my hon. Friend will put down a Question.

Mr. Gordon Walker: We must, of course, read the aide mémoire before making up our minds about this, although from what the right hon. Gentleman has said I am not sure whether this is going to be altogether satisfactory. Is he not aware that the House does attach very great importance to knowing and being able to discuss the terms of reference which govern the use of our own troops in any capacity whatsoever? I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to say a word about the possible use of British police there? I appreciate that he may want notice of this, but, on the other hand, he is not going to answer Questions for quite a long time. Would they go under this directive? Thirdly, can he say whether the Greek and Turkish Cypriots agreed to this directive which has been issued by the Secretary-General to the United Nations?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the latter point is that the directive was issued entirely upon the authority of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Could the right hon. Gentleman remind me of his other point?

Mr. Gordon Walker: The police.

Mr. Butler: On the question of the police, I am aware that I am not answer-

ing Questions first for some time, but as we have only just received this request, I think it would be irresponsible to give an answer since we are just giving it consideration.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer a simple question, if I may be permitted to put one to him, namely, does the aide mémoire provide that our troops in Cyprus are to adopt a passive or active role? Surely that question should be answered? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the situation has become highly critical in Cyprus with the rapid build-up of Greek Cypriot troops, and what is to be the position of our troops if they are attacked?

Mr. Butler: Certainly the aide mémoire provides for an active rôle in support of peace, and I think it is for each to read and form his own conclusions.

Mr. Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the anxieties of this House will be graver if the directive does not clear up the position of the police who go out if they are asked for? Would it not be very unsatisfactory if they should be made to look as ridiculous as our British troops have been? Will he ensure that any police who do go out will be entirely volunteer?

Mr. Butler: We shall have to look further into the question of the police and I could not answer any Questions on it today.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDONESIA AND MALAYSIA

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the situation on the borders of Indonesia and Malaysia.

Mr. P. Thomas: Indonesian guerrillas continue to operate in Eastern Malaysia. By 6th April there had been no less than 55 violations of the cease-fire of 24th January. There is ample evidence that the period of cease-fire has been used by the Indonesians to increase their guerrilla strength.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not evident that President Soekarno's policy of confrontation has created a very dangerous


situation which might erupt into full-scale war any time? Is it not time that the matter was referred to the United Nations for them to act under Article 35 to investigate the situation? Surely the time has come for some action to be taken by Her Majesty's Government in conjunction with the Government of Malaysia.

Mr. Thomas: I am very glad that the right hon. and learned Member mentioned those last few words, because whether the matter is referred to the United Nations must surely be a matter for the Government of Malaysia to decide. I understand that they have recently sent a letter to the Secretary-General surveying the history of the dispute.
As to the first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question, I quite agree with him that the policy of confrontation which is pursued by Indonesia is a dangerous one, and I hope that it will stop.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Since we have British troops in Malaysia, is it not open to us to urge on the Government of Malaysia that they should ask for United Nations observers to come to control the frontier and to report when violations occur?

Mr. Thomas: I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows the difficulty of observers on the frontier of this difficult terrain. The Malaysian Government were anxious that Thai observers should come, but, so far, it is extremely difficult because the Indonesian interpretation of what a cease-fire should be is not very clear at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — YEMEN

Fort (R.A.F. Attack)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Her Majesty's Government did not bring the situation on the Yemen-South Arabian frontier to the attention of the Security Council before ordering the attack on the fort at Harib.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if he will instruct the British delegate at the United Nations to raise with the

Security Council the matter of the attack made by a Yemeni helicopter on camels grazing in the British-protected State of Beihan prior to the reprisal raid made on the town of Harib by eight Royal Air Force Hunter jets on 28th March last; and
(2) in view of the effect on the relations between Great Britain and the Arab Republics of the attack by eight Hunter jet aircraft on the town of Harib in the Yemen, what steps he proposes to take to restore good relations.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions have now been given to the representative of Her Majesty's Government at the Security Council regarding action to be taken at the United Nations to avoid further military conflict on the Yemen-South Arabian Federation border.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I will, with permission, answer this Question and Nos. 24, 25—

Captain Litchfield: On a point of order. Referring to Questions Nos. 24 and 25, may I ask whether it is in order that an assertion which has been denied by Her Majesty's Government—that is, the statement in Questions Nos. 24 and 25 that the town of Harib was attacked, which reflects upon the conduct of Her Majesty's forces—should receive publicity on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member tabling a Question takes responsibility personally for the assertion of fact contained in it.

Mr. Butler: As I said, I will, with permission, answer this Question and Nos. 24. 25 and 30 together.
I would refer hon. Members to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 9th April in answer to a Question on the same subject by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin).
References to an attack on "the town of Harib" are entirely mistaken. There was no attack upon the town of Harib, but only upon the isolated fort some distance away and this after warning by leaflet. Before that attack was authorised, our representative at the United


Nations had made numerous representations to the President of the Security Council about Yemeni attacks, including that of 13th March. He has since made a number of suggestions in the Security Council designed to reduce tension, to restore good relations and to avoid further conflict on the border between the Yemen and the South Arabian Federation. These include a withdrawal of forces on both sides of the frontier, the establishment of a demilitarised zone, probably supervised by United Nations observers, and an attempt to secure an agreed delimitation and demarcation of the frontier. In addition, Sir Patrick Dean has proposed to the Council that all parties concerned should refrain from infringements of the frontier as well as from the promotion or encouragement of other hostile activities.
I must inform the House that on the day following the passage of the resolution by the Security Council calling on all to exercise restraint a Yemeni aircraft again crossed the Federal border and twice circled places near the area which had been the target of the last two attacks. We immediately notified the President of the Security Council and asked that all members of the Council should be informed.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that the first Yemeni aerial attack on South Arabian territory took place as far back as October, 1962, and was followed by a second aerial attack in February, 1963? Why was it that Her Majesty's Government took no action and did not go to the Security Council and ask it to investigate the situation which followed these aerial attacks? Instead of that, they wait until there are further attacks and then take unilateral action. Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that we will strengthen the authority of the United Nations if we bypass them in this way?

Mr. Butler: That does not give a proper picture of the situation. There were the attacks referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Then on six separate occasions, which I have here—in March, July and September, 1963, and three times in March, 1964—we made representations to the President of the Security Council and asked for proper consideration to be given to the Yemeni attacks.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the first Question which I put to which he referred I mentioned Fort Harib and was informed by an authority that that was wrong. Therefore, I was between the devil and the deep sea. Has the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of this country, accepted the doctrine of retaliation? That has been condemned by the United Nations. Why do we not renounce it now? If this incident is of such a serious nature as the right hon. Gentleman says, have we made a charge in the Security Council against the Yemen and are we seeking redress?
On my second Question, since it would appear that we have destroyed our good relations with the Arab countries, and in view of the damage to life and limb which was done by this raid, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of compensation for the damage done?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's last point is "No, Sir". In answer to the penultimate point which he put, we attach the first importance to our relations with the Arab countries, and I hope that the positive suggestions given in my Answer about the frontier, about a possible demilitarised zone, about the possibility of observers, and so forth, will be taken up by the Security Council and by all those concerned so that there is no repetition of these incidents.
With regard to the hon. Member's earlier point about Harib, I have given the facts about that. I must accept what he has said, but I have given the facts as they were true. With regard to retaliation, this was not retaliation. It was an act of self-defence in honouring the solemn treaty which we have with the Federation of Southern Arabia.

Mr. Dempsey: Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that the border is a very ill-defined one and that this has now been established by those who have done aerial runs over the border between the Yemen and South Arabia? Will he, therefore, ask the Security Council to take steps to ensure that the border is carefully defined, even though the undefended and neutralized zone may not be accepted? Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that


sending these punitive expeditions is not the wisest or best way to solve these border problems? Will he rely on the conference table at the United Nations rather than have a repetition of such military action?

Mr. Butler: In my previous answer, I said that we attached great importance to these positive steps, and we hope that they may be followed up.

Mr. Goodhew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Southern Arabian Federation has been troubled by other incursions from the Yemen for a long time and that the matter which is of much more concern to other Arab nations is that the Egyptians should be asked to withdraw their troops from the Yemen?

Mr. Butler: We have made repeated complaints through the United States Government, who represent us at San'a, to the Yemen Government about these incursions, and we trust that those, combined with these positive steps, will have some effect.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Gentleman did not really answer the question put to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), namely, why he did not ask for a meeting of the Security Council. It is not enough, in these circumstances, just to report to the President. Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that we put ourselves in a position in which we embarrassed some of our best friends in the United Nations? They were extremely embarrassed. Would he accept from me that there are many people who would like to see him assert himself somewhat more strongly against the Commonwealth Secretary in this matter?

Mr. Butler: I entirely repudiate the right hon. Gentleman's last suggestion. All decisions taken in this matter have been taken by the Government as a whole, and we all bear an equal share of responsibility. Regarding the right hon. Gentleman's question as to why we did not appeal to the Security Council, we took the step on six or eight occasions—six occasions for certain since March, 1963—of informing the President of the Security Council, and we thought that that was adequate. If that did not prove to be correct, we must take other steps.

Captain Litchfield: On a point of order. In view of my right hon. Friend's reply, ought not the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) to withdraw his allegation that the Royal Air Force attacked the town of Harib?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for the Chair to get people to withdraw factual statements, however inaccurate. I am not saying that this one was inaccurate. I do not know the state of the hon. Member's knowledge at the time the Question was put down.

Sir P. Agnew: On a point of order. For the sake, of accuracy, ought not my right hon. Friend to make it clear that in his last reply but one, when he used the phrase "the Yemeni Government", he was not referring to the Government which Her Majesty's Government recognise?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is enough difficulty already in getting on with Questions. I do not want hon. Members rising to entirely bogus points of order. The practice is growing, and I confess that as the servant of the House and in the interests of everybody, I shall have to take some desperate step about it if it goes on.

Egyptian Military Forces

Sir J. Eden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what protest he has made to Egypt concerning the threat to the peace in the South Arabian Federation caused by the continued build-up of Egyptian military forces in the Yemen.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer my hon. Friend to the information I gave in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 16th March. Although the terms of reference of the United Nations Observation Mission have been extended until May, there has been no other significant development so far as the Secretary-General's connection with the problem is concerned. We have not made formal representations to the Government of the United Arab Republic in the sense suggested by my hon. Friend, but he will no doubt have read the searching and critical remarks made by Sir Patrick Dean in the recent debate in the Security Council, during which


he drew attention to the clear and direct responsibility borne by the Government of the United Arab Republic for the disturbed state of affairs between the Yemen and the Federation of South Arabia.

Sir J. Eden: Will my right hon. Friend continue to press the Security Council to consider this matter and to have regard to the danger constituted by the presence in the Yemen of 30,000 to 40,000 hostile Egyptian troops, who definitely cause a threat to the peace of the South Arabian Federation? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there would be justification for accusations against Her Majesty's Government if we failed to uphold our treaty obligations to independent Arab States? Will he continue to take the strongest possible measures, in conjunction with our allies in that part of the world, to maintain law and order against the Egyptian troops?

Mr. Butler: The answer, in general, is in the affirmative. As I have said, we have made representations to the Yemeni authorities.

Mr. A. Royle: Will my right hon. Friend continue making an immediate application for a meeting of the Security Council to discuss the continued occupation of the Yemen by Egyptian troops against the wish of the Yemeni people?

Mr. Butler: I do not know whether I could undertake to do that immediately, but we are determined to seize the Security Council of any outstanding issue in this difficult part of the world.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENEVA DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE

Mr. Prentice: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the position reached at the Disarmament Conference at Geneva.

Mr. P. Thomas: The Disarmament Conference has, at its Tuesday meetings, given further consideration to proposals for the reduction of nuclear delivery vehicles, and its Thursday meetings have been devoted to the study of various

confidence-building measures. On 26th March, I circulated a United Kingdom paper designed to facilitate discussion of the technical problems involved in a system of observation posts.

Mr. Prentice: Could the Minister of State define those aspects of the discussions which the Government feel ought to have particular attention in the weeks ahead? Arising from what he has said about last Tuesday's meeting, could he say something more about the progress made at the discussions on delivery vehicles? Is it not a fact that most of us recognise that President Johnson's proposal on this is one of the most hopeful in the current session? What specific steps are the Government taking towards any agreement on delivery vehicles—their numbers and types? Or are they inhibited by their intention to have Polaris submarines?

Mr. Thomas: No. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman when he talks about the importance of President Johnson's proposals for a freeze. The Disarmament Conference has not as yet received full details from the American representative. We hope to have that before very long. As to the other matters which are being discussed, we are dealing with what are sometimes called the Gromyko proposals. There is a lot of detail to discuss, and it looks as though this will carry on for two or three weeks. Thursday's discussions are on collateral measures, and there is no restriction on what collateral measures we refer to.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Would the hon. Gentleman say what action he or other representatives have taken to give full support to President Johnson's freeze proposals?

Mr. Thomas: Yes. I and my right hon. Friend when he was at Geneva both gave our support in terms.

Mr. Speaker: Dame Irene Ward.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We must try to make some progress, although I appreciate the importance of the matter. Dame Irene Ward.

Oral Answers to Questions — VICTIMS OF NAZI PERSECUTION

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, for the purposes of negotiation with the Federal German Government on compensation due to British nationals imprisoned illegally in German concentration camps, he will ask the International Research Organisation for their list of such persons.

Mr. Mathew: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the International Tracing Service at Arolsen. An inquiry has already been addressed to this body. The reply has, unfortunately, made it clear that no list exists of British victims persecuted in concentration camps, and that the International Tracing Service could not compile such a list. Their records, which are not complete, consist of an alphabetical index of many million names of former inmates of concentration camps, which is not broken down into nationalities.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICIAL WAR HISTORIES (RESISTANCE MOVEMENTS)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now supplement the existing official histories of the late war with an official account of the United Kingdom's contribution to the resistance movements on the Continent.

Mr. P. Thomas: Her Majesty's Government have given a great deal of thought to this question. Some three

years ago, they commissioned a professional historian to write an account of the achievements of the Special Operations Executive in France. The draft has now been completed and Her Majesty's Government have decided in principle that it is suitable, subject to further detailed scrutiny, for publication by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend convey to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) the appreciation of, I am sure, those connected with the Special Operations Executive and the resistance people whom they helped in Europe of the fact that this decision has been taken? Would he also convey my thanks and those of my two friends who were associated with me in this, Elizabeth Nicholas and Jean Overton Fuller, and pressed the former Prime Minister to take this action? Will he convey how grateful we all are that at last the Government have decided to let the world know something of the work done by the British in conjunction with our European friends?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir.

Mr. M. Foot: While the hon. Gentleman is helping us with the writing of past history, would he also help us with the writing of current history and place in the Library an aide mémoire explaining what directives have recently been sent by his right hon. Friend to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations?

Mr. Thomas: I suggest that that is probably another question.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 60—(RECOVERY OF LOCAL AUTHORITY'S EXPENSES UNDER PART II OF ACT OF 1961.)

3.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I beg to move Amendment No. 107, in page 63, line 36, to leave out "house or other building" and to insert "premises".
This Amendment, Mr. Speaker, is identical with a number of others in the Bill, and I think that we might conveniently take them together. The others are Nos. 131, 132, 133, 134, 151, 152, 153, and 154.

Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.

Mr. Corfield: These are really drafting Amendments, but they refer to the provisions in the Bill governing the power of a local authority to charge the premises in order to cover any unrecovered expenditure. During the Committee stage some doubt was expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) whether the words in the Bill covered the land and any other buildings in the curtilage but not actually part of the house. My advice is that the Bill as originally drafted covered these matters, but I accept that the proposed words are clearer.

Amendment agreed to

Further Amendment made: in page 64, line 12, after "18(5)", insert "of the Act of 1961".—[Mr. Corfield.]

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 109, in page 64, to leave out lines 22 to 25.
Mr. Speaker, may we take, at the same time, the next Amendment, No. 110?

Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.

Mr. Corfield: These are both drafting Amendments, though they differ a little in their effect. The reason for the omission of the lines in both cases is that

they are no longer required because of a later Government Amendment, No. 167, in Clause 87, page 89, line 39, at the end to insert:
(3) References in this Part of this Act to expenditure incurred in respect of a house subject to a control order include, in a ease where the local authority—

(a) require persons living in the house to vacate their accommodation for any period while the local authority are carrying out works in the house, and
(b) defray all or any part of the expenses incurred by or on behalf of those persons removing from and returning to the house, or provide housing accommodation for those persons for any part of that period.

references to the sums so defrayed by the local authority, and to the net cost to the local authority of so providing housing accommodation.
(4) For the purposes of this Part of this Act the withdrawal of an appeal shall be deemed the final determination thereof having the like effect as a decision dismissing the appeal.
whereby similar words are inserted as a new subsection (4) to Clause 87, which applies to the whole of this part of the Bill.
The inserting of the new subsection (6) into Clause 61 in place of lines 7 to 10 clearly has a rather different meaning, however. It is not directly connected with the deletions except in so far as this is a convenient place in the Bill to insert these provisions. They arise from Section 23(4) and (5) of the 1961 Act, which provides that responsible officers of a company can be equally responsible with a company for any offence committed under Part II of the 1961 Act. This Amendment introduces the same provisions into this Bill.

Mr. James MacColl: I have no desire to say anything about the omissions—they are, as the hon. Gentleman says, drafting and, so far as I can see, do not raise any point of principle—but I think that the hon. Gentleman took the addition in Amendment No. 110 rather lightly. This is the only response which the Government have made to a long campaign which began in 1961 and continued in Committee. The matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), in a new Clause, which was not called, by which he sought to have something a little more vigorous done about the


mushroom company and the evasive director.
When we were discussing this matter in 1961 on an Amendment similar to this one, we raised in terms the problem which is presented by the company which either changes its name so rapidly that proceedings against it are of very little value, or changes its directors, or its directors change their names, in such a way that it is quite impossible to keep track of them.
When this matter first arose we put forward two possible ways of trying to tackle the problem, not only by trying to introduce into the penal provisions the formal director, a person whose name appeared in the documents of the company, but by trying to get behind that name and find out the person who had beneficial ownership of the company. We made two attempts at this and tried two different drafts. The then Minister, with all the resources that he had to advise him, failed to take up this point or to find any adequate alternative. We thought then that this was a very great pity, and we observed it with regret.
Since then there have been changes, and the problems, like the problems of Rachmanism, have arisen again, and we now attach a good deal more importance to the matter than we did in 1961. What has happened since 1961 shows that the Clause in the 1961 Act, and, therefore, the Clause in the Bill, even with the Amendment applied to the provisions about the control order, is not in itself sufficiently effective to do the job.
In Committee, we looked at the comparable problem of registration where one registers the owners of houses in multiple occupation. One also wants to look at the problem of how one catches the person behind the company. Since 1961 there has been a great deal of talk about these problems. I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman—I am sure he is familiar with it—to an article in The Times on 7th January. That was not us talking in the Committee. It was not even the Opposition talking. It was an article written by an impartial investigator, and the Minister is always telling us that he wants the facts and is interested to hear them.
The Minister got the facts in January, 1964, and I am very sorry that he did not take a little more seriously the information which The Times produced about this problem. The Times said:
Behind a complex of shifting limited liability companies is the same man—Mr. Arthur Bertram Waters. Inquiries by The Times have revealed that after lying dormant for some years Mr. Waters is busy reorganising his companies. Unstaffed offices at Brighton and Hove are being given as the new registered offices for companies old and new, often under the nominee name 'Edwards'. In fact, the real headquarters of the entire Waters business is an unimpressive office in Clapham Park Road, S.W., from which some 250 freehold and leasehold properties north and south of the Thames, many of them nearly 100 years old, are controlled.
That is precisely the kind of property with which the Amendment is concerned and to which we have attempted to direct the attention of the House on more than one occasion.
The article went on:
A variety of names appear on the files of the companies as directors, secretaries and shareholders.
This is exactly the point which we have raised in dealing with this criminal liability of directors and other officers of these companies. It went on:
Often they are past and present employees of Mr. Waters, including the office manager and typist. On occasions, registered offices of the companies have been given as the usual residential addresses of company officials. In few cases are they other than addresses at which mail ca n be collected at intervals".
This is precisely what we were saying earlier about trying to get proper addresses registered.
The article added:
Mr. Waters's son, Hugh Graham Waters…is now helping to run the business. In an interview with your Correspondent at the office in Clapham Park Road he agreed that the 'Mr. Edwards' who appears as a director on the files of a number of the companies was 'in a sense' himself.
This is the precise point of the evasive director who has the real ownership of the company.
The article quoted him as saying:
'It is a nominee name we use'.
Later, referring to an old friend of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner)—Mr. Brady—the article said:
Mr. Lipton once suggested in the House of Commons that Arthur Waters and Brady were the same person.

Sir Barnett Janner: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to correct his statement: Mr. Brady is no friend of mine.

Mr. MacColl: My hon. Friend's reputation would stand even the involuntary slur of being associated in that way. Everyone knows that he has done a tremendous public service in exposing this show.
The article continued:
His son denied it.
'I understand that an Irish firm of accountants provided someone who would come over and give his name for our activities in this country and that the agent's name was Brady '.
We are all familiar with the shop which sells limited companies to land-lords who can use them for their purposes of transferring property to avoid prosecution, but I did not know before that there was a personnel management which could give names of men of straw who could be used for similar purposes. This points to another glaring weakness in the Amendment and the failure to be able to make this part of the Bill bite.
My final quotation from the article illustrates the problem of chasing from one company to another:
The most recent registered office of a number of companies is 3 and 4 Preston Street, Brighton. On the door of the two-room office in the London and Manchester Assurance Co. building is the name of J. Edwards and a list of six companies: Providers of Homes, Metropolitan and Surburban Estates, Various Tenancies, Various Tenancies (South London), Various Tenancies (Pollock and Deacon) and Various Tenancies (Four). Staff in the assurance company offices knew little of their new neighbours. Mr. Edwards hardly ever comes here…two elderly ladies used to call in every afternoon…the mail is collected occasionally…we get people in here who have travelled all the way from London and are worried about evictions and that sort of thing,' your Correspondent was told.
3.45 p.m.
This article appeared in The Times three months ago and confirmed what my hon. Friends and I have been saying and what has been known to anyone who has made any attempt to enforce the 1961 Act. This will be an inherent weakness in the Bill. The kind of man who goes in for this kind of racket in a big way will be able to shift his name, shift his address and have bogus addresses, so the two elderly

property and trying to collect the money ladies can collect the mail and the man responsible will never be served with a notice because one will never be sure where he is. There will be the difficulties of the Irish firm supplying names of men of straw to appear as secretaries and typists, and so on.
It is urgent that the Government should try to tackle this problem of pinning down the beneficial owner of a company so that this facade of trickery and fraud can be brushed aside and so that this penal Clause will bite on the man who gets the profits. I cannot believe that it is too difficult to do that, and I very much hope that it will be done in a later Amendment.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has said. For many years the Government have refused to tackle this problem with energy and decision. I remember that on 17th June, 1952, I asked the then Minister of Housing, the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), to ensure that the correct names of property owners were recorded with the rating authorities. He replied:
I do not think that any steps are called for on my part."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 977.]
That is the attitude which the Government have taken ever since.
My hon. Friend spoke of the difficult ties in the way of local authorities trying to identify the real owner of property. Unfortunately, Lambeth Borough Council has a long experience of dealing with Brady, alias Waters, alias all the other names of companies owning properties in Lambeth and other parts of London. I will quote one case to help to pinpoint the difficulty.
A short time ago, one of the companies to which my hon. Friend referred, and which was mentioned in this remarkable article in The Times of 7th January, Various Tenancies (South London) Limited, was the owner of a number of leasehold and freehold properties in my constituency and neighbouring parts of south London. The borough council carried out certain repairs to one of these properties because Brady, alias Water, et cetera, refused to carry them out. Instead of going to the trouble of registering the charge on the


over a long period afterwards, the borough council took proceedings in the county court to recover the cost of £50, or whatever it was, due from the owner of this property.
The council obtained judgment, but it was not possible to enforce it because no one on whom the judgment debt could be enforced could be identified. The only possibility open to the council was to obtain an order for the compulsory winding up of the company as the money had not been paid. It obtained an order in the High Court, the company not appearing or being represented.
A day or two after the winding-up order had been made, the company suddenly decided to come to light, and it tendered a banker's draft for the amount of the judgment debt, asking the council to consent to the rescission of the winding-up order. The borough council, very wisely, did not accept the proposal, taking the view that it was not in the public interest that companies of this kind should continue to own property in London and elsewhere.
The company then asked the court for a stay of the operation of the winding-up order and its motion was heard on 11th November. The judge delivered a provisional judgment, acceding to the motion for a stay on the strict understanding that within 14 days there should be filed on behalf of the company further evidence dealing with the following points. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take note of the further evidence which the judge required:

"(i) The exhibition of balance sheets in accordance with the company's statutory duty for each year since incorporation or, alternatively, adopt as a balance sheet the statement of affairs lodged already with the Official Receiver.
(ii) Remedying the previous absence of any provision for tax.
(iii) The amortisation of the short leaseholds disclosed in the affidavits filed by the company as being their assets."

The extraordinary thing is that further investigation revealed that here was a property-owning company, operating in Brixton and other parts of London, which was compelled to file a statement of its affairs. Here was a company with a nominal capital of £500, only £2 of which had been paid up. The company operated with some cash kept in the desk of the registered office. These are the

kind of people we have to deal with. They flour every provision of the Companies Act.
When we approached the Board of Trade to take action for non-compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, for not showing the registered offices as the office occupied and not making annual returns, and when we notified the Inland Revenue authorities, no action at all was taken. We are at an absolutely dead end in trying to deal with slick operators of this kind. The Minister has all the details. He has a copy of the article which appeared in The Times and he has the details I have given the House. I have sent them to the Milner that and Committee. What else can I do, even at the risk of raising this matter ad nauseam, but urge the Minister that the time has come to make quite sure that this sort of operator is not allowed to carry on?
The only way in which these slum emperors can have their wings clipped, and we can enable local authorities to carry out their duties towards their tenants, is by putting teeth into any housing Bill which the House is asked to accept. We should make it a criminal offence to give false information, to have dummy directors and accommodation addresses. We have tried to trace these directors, but no one is known and their names and addresses are not in the directory. All this is allowed to go on with impunity. I urge the Government to accept what my hon. Friend has said and to take effective action at long last.

Sir B. Janner: This is an extremely important matter. Every hon. Member in the House knows by this time what has been going on in regard to the so-called companies set up for the purpose of avoiding any liability in respect of houses they purchase. In most cases the leases have only a short period to run. The company itself is a company of straw which draws out of the tenant whatever it can and does nothing by way of repairing the houses. Eventually, the company sells to another company the directors of which are nominees of the previous company. The tenant then has writs served on him making demands for vast sums of money although he has never been able to find the landlord.
In many cases the tenant, after years in which he has not known who the landlord was, is served with a notice demanding hundreds of pounds for rent and he is not in a position to meet the demands made on him. I suggest to the Minister that, in addition to the ordinary criminal penalty to which reference has been made, there should be some penalty in the nature of the company not being able to claim any moneys from a tenant unless throughout the period in respect of which the claim is made it has declared who the directors are, who the company is and who is benefiting. That would immediately have the effect of preventing a large number of these shady customers from carrying on this kind of enterprise. They would then know that they could not claim any moneys from innocent tenants.
Tenants are often left in houses which they themselves have to repair. The houses are in very bad condition, and the council pounces on the tenant because the actual owner cannot be found to provide the funds for essential repairs. In my view, those repairs are not essential to keep the tenant protected. The kind of penalty suggested in the Bill will not be sufficient to cover this position. One company sells its debts to another company by a deed of assignment, sometimes not giving notice to the tenant that the debt has been transferred until the last minute. The tenant does not know where he or she is.
I am definitely of the opinion—probably the House will agree—that if some way were found whereby the courts could not be forced to make orders in cases of that kind for arrears of rent, or so-called arrears, the machinations of large numbers of these people would be destroyed. They would have to declare who the actual owners were, or would at least have to declare who was getting the benefit from the rents which were extracted. I do not think that such a provision could be called unfair. At present, a company puts the debts at a nominal sum and extracts the money from the tenants by means of the court. These companies use the courts to get the full amount, £200 or £300, from a tenant, who may have been in the premises for a large number of years. The tenants have to prove what they

or their predecessors have paid for repairs done by the local authority or the deduction of sums by way of rates or for property tax which the landlord has failed to pay.
I hope that the Government will consider my suggestion favourably and will at some stage introduce something of that nature in addition to any other penalty which is imposed.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Lest it be thought that what has been said in this discussion is confined to London, I will quote a case from the provinces. This sort of thing is happening all over the country. The case I shall quote is so similar to the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) that I begin to think that the same company is involved. Indeed, it may be operating throughout the country on a tremendous scale, for the details are so similar.
In Manchester and Salford there is a firm of rent collectors called Kershaw and Sons. This firm acts on behalf of a new firm of property owners in Salford which has acquired street after street of rotting old houses. That in itself makes me suspicious. A property company that wants to invest in rotting old slum houses has probably a dirty game in mind to start with, otherwise it would not go in for that kind of property.
The name in the rent book is Zuphon Limited. The case I am quoting is one in which this firm is guilty, in my view, of something illegal. I wrote to Kershaw and Sons to ask the names and addresses of the directors of Zuphon Limited. The answer, very curtly, was that I could only have Kershaw and Sons' address.
I was not satisfied with that and consulted the company registry. I found—just as my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton found in his case—that this firm, owning vast numbers of houses, has a registered capital of £100, with only £2 paid up—again, just as my hon. Friend found.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: It is the minimum allowed.

Mr. Allaun: Perhaps that explains the similarity.
Again, the company is in the names of people who are men of straw. This firm is indulging in illegal practices and I will give one example. It is the case of a widow who has lived for 30 years in the same house. She received a new rent book in which the word "decont" was typed. This is short for "decontrolled". I may add at this stage that this has nothing to do with the other cases the Minister has examined and has sent to Salford Council with, I hope, a view to prosecution. This is quite a different case. But there are thousands of them.
As one can imagine, this lady is very alarmed. I took the matter up with Kershaw and Sons and instead of admitting that it was wrong—because this is as controlled a tenancy, Mr. Speaker, as your controlled tenancy of this House—what did Kershaw and Sons reply? They did not say that they were sorry for having made a mistake. After a delay of a month they replied asking me to produce proof that this lady is a controlled tenant.
Now this lady does not keep her rent books back to pre-1957 and I repeat that she has been in her house for 30 years. I thereupon wrote again to Kershaw and Sons and got the same reply. Kershaw and Sons know perfectly well that this action by them is a trick, yet this firm had the impertinence to reply to an hon. Member of this House in such a manner, while hiding behind these names. We do not know who is behind all this and, therefore, I support very strongly what has been said by my hon. Friends today in asking the Minister to do something about this situation. We have quoted him a few cases and I am sure that if we knew the whole facts we would find this to be a scandal and a racket on a national scale.

Mr. Corfield: Nobody holds any brief whatever for the sort of behaviour of the type of landlord mentioned by hon. Members opposite, but I remind the House that, almost by definition, these mushroom companies make it extremely difficult to find out exactly who is the "beneficial owner"—to use the term in the sense expressed by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and

not in the usual one. Even if such investigations are successful they will almost invariably involve some delay, very often considerable. We are concerned hero with quick action by local authorities to alleviate the position in those houses that happen to be multi-occupied.
I would, therefore, remind the House that the Clause, after all, deals only with the offence that is created when somebody wilfully fails to conform to an order ender subsection (1). It is self-evident that it is right—and admittedly this was an omission from the Bill as first drafted—to make the directors who can be ascertained liable for the offence that is being created, even though it may be difficult to find the man who is truly behind the company.
Certainly, I think that we must assume that these companies or the people behind them own these houses for profit, and, there again, we have in the Bill given local authorities power to place charges on such property in order to cover their expenses in rectifying the evils of management, or overcrowding, or lack of amenities, and so on, which give rise to the orders we are discussing. This Clause is, therefore, rather narrower than the matters raised today by hon. Members opposite.
I hope that the House will accept the Amendment. I will certainly read the constructive suggestions put by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner). Of course, one does not wish to condone these people and one admits that these are the people basically responsible. But sooner or later, even if they have any number of "front" directors, if those "front" directors are fined fairly heavily, profits will be considerably affected.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 61.—(PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO EXECUTE WORKS UNDER PART II OF ACT OF 1961.)

Amendment made: In page 66, leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert:
(6) Subsections (4) and (5) of section 23 of the Act of 1961 (criminal liability of directors and other officers of body corporate) shall apply in relation to an offence punishable under this section.—[Mr. Corfield.]

Clause 63.—(OVERCROWDED HOUSES AND EXECUTION OF WORKS IN OVER- CROWDED HOUSES.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 67, in line 4, at the end to insert:
(5) In Section 19(2) of the Act of 1961 (which imposes certain duties on the occupier for the time being of a house in respect of which a direction is given under that Section fixing a limit as regards the numbers who should live there) the reference to the occupier for the time being of the house shall include a reference to any person who is for the time being entitled or authorised to permit individuals to take up residence in the house or any part of the house.
This is an Amendment to Section 19 of the 1961 Act, which authorises a local authority to set a limit to the number of individuals living in a multi-occupied house and puts the duty of compliance on the occupier for the time being. The Section was enacted in that way because it was then expected that the legal occupier would be the only person capable of exercising the necessary control.
During the Committee stage of the Bill, attention was drawn to the difficulties which arise—the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) was one of those who did so—where the house or part of the house is vacant and the owner is legally in possession, but is, perhaps, outside the jurisdiction. By letting through an agent he can thereby re-establish the original number of individuals in the building after having initially allowed the number to run down in accordance with the order. This problem was not covered by the original wording.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I recognise that there is multi-occupation and gross overcrowding in the London area and in other parts of England. In Scotland, there is a great deal of overcrowding—

Mr. E. G. Willis: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand, that, with this Amendment, we are discussing the Amendment in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland to Schedule 3, in page 120, line 51 at the end to insert:
In this subsection the reference to the occupier for the time being of the house shall include a reference to any person who is for the time being entitled or authorised to permit individuals to take up residence in the house or in part of the house?

Mr. Speaker: That was not my understanding, but, if it is convenient to the House, I should not raise any objection.

Mr. Corfield: The two Amendments do cover the same point. It is my mistake, I should have asked that they be considered together, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).

Mr. Manuel: I wish to be reassured about the position which arises because of the subletting which goes on in many parts of Scotland, and to be told whether the subsection to be added to Clause 63 would protect that position. In Section 19(2) of the 1961 Act there is some local authority control. It is stated:
not to permit any individual to take up residence in the house so as to increase the number of individuals living in the house to a number above the limit specified in the direction…
Section 15 of the same Act states:
…having regard to the number of inidividuals or households, or both, accommodated for the time being on the premises, as not to be reasonably suitable for occupation by those individuals or households, the local authority may serve either…
There may be a property comprising 12 or six rooms and the local authority may be concerned at the number of people living in it and try to control that number. The local authority may have decided what work it is necessary to carry out to provide proper amenities, but this work has not been completed. The local authority, in such a case, might say that it would limit the number of individuals, but the Amendment says:
…shall include a reference to any person who is for the time being entitled or authorized to permit individuals to take up residence in the house or any part of the house".
I wish to have more information about this person. Will he be the owner of the house; or someone connected with the local authority; or a tenant living in the house who is to be given this—as I consider—onerous task?
4.15 p.m.
It may be that the proper number of people living in a 12-room house has not been exceeded. But a situation could easily arise in which each room of the house was sublet to a separate family and the amenities available would not


be sufficient for so many families. This has been the great difficulty in respect of many tenant properties in Scotland where several families may be obliged to use one toilet, or one washbasin at the top of a stairway.
I wish to know whether the Amendment is sufficiently strong to control the subletting in Scotland which is of a different type from that in England. Who will authorise the number of households which may be housed in one property? I think that hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies are entitled to know.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Before we accept this Amendment I think it right to ask the question which has been asked before, but not answered: what is to happen to tenants displaced from overcrowded houses in circumstances where a landlord may be acting honourably or dishonourably? There will be nowhere for them to go, and, short of a vast increase in the amount of local authority housing, will the Bill do any good at all, or will the problem be transferred from one place to another?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not follow how that attaches to this Amendment. How does the definition of an occupier for this purpose affect the problem raised by the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Allaun: We are dealing with the question of overcrowded houses and I took the opportunity to raise the problem, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are confined to what results from adding or from not adding these words.

Mr. Corfield: I understand that the position in Scotland is the same as in England. It may help if I remind the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) that Section 19 of the 1961 Act deals exclusively with limiting the number of individuals in the house. In other words, where there is a house which is not deficient as a property, but has become deficient because the number of people in it is excessive, a local authority may say that the number should be reduced by so many, but the effect of the order is that no relets shall be allowed. In other words, a remedy is being effected by wastage rather than by notice.
The difficulty has arisen where the person who is entitled to relet, who will normally be the owner is outside the jurisdiction of the law, which means that the person with an interest could be prosecuted only for aiding and abetting, because he is not a person having control, and the man truly responsible is beyond the arm of the British courts.
Section 15 of the 1961 Act raises a different set of circumstances, where the local authority is of the opinion that, having regard to the number of individuals or households in the house as at that moment, certain works are necessary; and there the question of reletting, or letting bits of the house which were not previously let, does not arise.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman appreciates that the Amendment refers us to Section 19 (2) which, in turn, refers us to Section 15. Section 19 not only deals with the individuals he indicated but also incorporates the conditions applying in Section 15.

Mr. Corfield: I see the point, but I think that it is clear—and I will seek further advice in case it is not—that the Amendment as drafted, which refers to Section 19 and brings in anything to which Section 19 refers, covers the point which the hon. Member had in mind.

Mr. Manuel: I hope so, but I am not too sure.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 68.—(MAKING OF CONTROL ORDER.)

Mr. Michael Stewart: I beg to move Amendment 112, in page 69, line 18, to leave out "and" and to insert" or (c)".
I think that it would be convenient to take at the same time Amendment No. 113, in line 18, to leave out from "authority" to "that" in line 19.

Mr. Speaker: It raises a different point, but probably it would be convenient to take them together.

Mr. Stewart: It is, in a sense, a different point, but the two Amendments together would produce a certain effect on the Clause, and it is that effect which I want the House to consider. It is true that we could make one Amendment
without the other, but the arguments for the two are very closely related, and they are also related to what we were discussing a little while ago on Amendments 109, in Clause 60, a id 110 in Clause 61.
We were there discussing tie problem of the landlord who is both scrupulous and elusive. Similarly, we are discussing him on these Amendments, but we are here concerned not with identifying or punishing the landlord but with protecting his tenant. I hope that the changes which we propose will coma end them-selves to the Government because, in a sense, they pay the Government a compliment in that they recognise that the Government have produced n the Bill the instrument of the control order, which is a very useful instrument indeed, chiefly because of its immediacy of action.
By the use of the control order, if certain circumstances apply the local authority need not bother al all about whether the house is owned by Mr. Waters or Mr. Brady, or w tether Mr. Waters and Mr. Brady are two persons or one. The local authority can simply go ahead and take to itself the powers and responsibilities of being the landlord of the property.
That is a very useful instrument, but it is our view on this side of the House that the circumstances in which that instrument can be used are at present too narrowly drawn in the Bill. We believe that it will be helpful, and that it will help to fulfil the Government's own intentions, if by means of these Amendments we widen the range of circumstances in which the instrument of a control order can be used.
The way in which we propose to do it is as follows: as the Clause stands, a control order can be used only on multi-occupied property. That runs all through the Bill, and that we do not attempt to change. Indeed, if we did, it would take us outside the scope of the Bill. We made efforts in that direction in Committee which were unsuccessful for that reason.
We admit, then, that the control order applies only to multi-occupied property. It also follows from the Clause that it can operate only where the multi-occupied property is one or which an

order under the 1961 Act either has been or could be made. One or other of those conditions must be fulfilled. In addition, the local authority must be satisfied, or it must appear to the local authority, that the living conditions in the house are such that it is necessary to make the control order to protect the safety of the persons living in the house.
As the Clause stands, both conditions have to apply. The dwelling must be one on which a 1961 order either has been made or could be made, and it has to appear to the local authority that it is necessary, because of the living conditions in the house, to make the control order The effect of our Amendments would be that it would not be a question of both those conditions having to prevail but that the control order could be made if either of those conditions prevailed. We no longer read" (a) or (b) and (c)" but "(a) or (b) or (c)".

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I agree that the second Amendment should be taken with the first, but surely the second Amendment has a larger effect, because the words
that the living conditions in the house are such
would be left out of the Bill.

Mr. Stewart: Indeed. I am not omitting that point. I am at the moment discussing the effect of the first Amendment. I shall deal with both, but I cannot mention both in the same sentence.
First of all, the Amendments would ensure that the control order could be made if it appeared to the local authority that it was necessary to do so to protect the safety, health and welfare of the tenants. That condition alone under our Amendments would be a reason, whether or not the house was one on which a 1961 order either had been or could be made.
Further, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, we do not require that it should appear to the local authority necessary to make the control order for purposes of safety, health and welfare solely because of the living conditions in the house. It might well be that it was necessary to take action to protect


the safety of the persons living in the house not necessarily because of the living conditions in the house but because of the behaviour of the landlords. If, for example, the tenant is subjected to the grosser forms of intimidation of which there has been shocking evidence, then, we feel, it should be possible to make the control order to protect the safety of the tenants, irrespective of what the living conditions in the house are like.
It no doubt often happens that the kind of landlord who uses Alsatian dogs is also the landlord whose premises are in a scandalous condition, but we feel that if either of those circumstances obtained it should be possible for the local authority to make the control order. If it has before it clearly evidence of gross intimidation by the landlord, it should not be restrained from making the control order by the fact that the premises are not such that one can say that the tenant's safety or health are in danger because of the living conditions in the house. I hope that I have made clear what the scope of our Amendments is.
4.30 p.m.
I will now say a few words about their necessity. I take, first, the words "safety, welfare or health". I have already dealt with the safety of persons living in the house. I do not wish to dwell unduly on the grosser forms of intimidation which have been practised. The right hon. Gentleman will tell me that these, fortunately, are of rare occurrence, that there has been, one hopes, some decline in their frequency since public inidignation was focused on them in the summer of last year, and that no doubt the Milner Holland Committee may be suggesting fundamental remedies later.
All that no doubt is true, but it is none the less desirable that there should be a clear and obvious safeguard when landlords behave in this manner. This is a valuable safeguard, because at the same moment it inflicts punishment on the landlord and protects the tenant. It deprives the landlord of his property and puts the tenant beyond his reach.
It may be said that the right answer to the grosser methods of intimidation is ordinary proceedings through the

police courts, but we all know full well how unrealistic that remedy can be. The acts may be done when there are no witnesses other than the victims, or, if there are neighbours who might be witnesses, they themselves may be in dread. In such a circumstance the right remedy is a remedy which makes it literally impossible for the offender to commit the offence again.
It is not only safety. It is health and welfare. Here I want to refer to the case brought up at Question Time a short while ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) of three ladies who had served on them a document which purported to give them notice, although they were, in fact, controlled tenants. It may be said—I think that this is what the Minister argued on that occasion—that these ladies had nothing to fear; they were, in fact, controlled tenants; the law protected them. I agree that for a young or middle-aged person who is active and capable easily of getting information there are no great terrors in being served with a notice to quit that has no legal validity.
However, to an elderly person, to one who is not able to get about a great deal and not therefore constantly in touch with people who find it easy to get advice, to one of a nervous disposition, to someone in ill health or physically incapacitated—I have known a notice of this kind served on a blind man in his eighties—it can be a very serious threat. It is frightening to be suddenly led to suppose that one has no security and may have to get out in four weeks.
There is no excuse at all for the commission of this offence, for, while the tenant may be excused for not always knowing whether he is legally protected, I cannot imagine any good reason that could be given by a landlord for not knowing whether property he owned was or was not controlled.

Sir K. Joseph: I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but there is a small point of detail which it would help if he cleared up now. Let us imagine the blind man or other disabled person who is put under some such pressure. By the hon. Gentleman's Amendment he must trigger off the control order in the same way. By the same


process by which he would trigger off the control order he will surely discover from the local authority, or indirectly, that he is totally protected. The real danger in all these cases is that, for understandable reasons, such people do not approach authority and, therefore, are not aware of their real rights. Would the hon. Gentleman deal with that?

Mr. Stewart: Yes. Let us take what happens as the law now stands. Such a notice is served on such a person. What is quite likely to happen is that he looks desperately round and manages to make some arrangement. He finds a relative who is able to put him up. Out he goes, never knowing that he need not have gone. There are the premises in vacant possession for the landlord, and nicely enhanced in value in consequence.
I admit that, with our Amendment passed, such a person might still do that and the local authority might never hear of it until it is too late. But I ask the House to notice the difference that our Amendment makes. As the law now stands, if the tenant behaves in the manner I have described the landlord gets away with it completely. Whenever the local authority finds out, either before or after the tenant moves, there is no penalty it can inflict. The landlord is in the happy position in that, if his gamble succeeds, he gets the house with vacant possession. If it does not succeed, he loses nothing.
Under our Amendment the landlord runs the risk if he does that of having a control order made on the house. If that is the law, landlords are much less likely to try this gamble on. It is true that they might be successful in some cases, for the reason that I have described; the thing might never be triggered off. But landlords run the risk that, if they are not successful, if word of what is happening gets out, a control order may be made on their premises. It seems to me to be right, to say the least, that a landlord who behaves in this manner should be a risk of a penalty of this kind.

>Mr. Frank Allaun: At least.

Mr. Stewart: At least. This Amendment is concerned with immediate prac-

ticality rather than with ultimate justice. We are more concerned with making it less likely that landlords will behave in this manner than weighing up exactly what penalty they deserve for so doing.
For these reasons, there is good reason for making these Amendments. I know it might be asked: would not this be a case for giving local authorities power to make control orders generally where a landlord behaves in a grossly anti-social manner and for the power not to be restricted merely to houses in multiple occupation? I agree that that is so, but we cannot do that in this Bill.
Much trouble would be saved if the legislation proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) to make evictions impossible without a court order were enacted. If that were done and if it were generally known that that were the law, there would be far less trouble of this kind. However, we cannot make such a provision in this Bill. I think it reasonable, however, to do what we can in the Bill by establishing this principle at least for houses in multiple occupation.
We have a strong case for the Amendment. If anyone should be inclined to oppose it, may I remind whoever it might be of words that came from the Government Front Bench just now, that nobody holds a brief for landlords of this kind. Let us make sure that nobody will hold such a brief in the discussion of this Amendment and let us hope that it will be accepted by the House.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: The Minister will know that I have been concerned on this question of control orders with a number of cases in my constituency. I support the two Amendments, particularly the second of them, because I am not satisfied that, even so far as we have gone with the Bill at this stage, we have yet covered the difficulty in the cases I put to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has pointed out that, if the Amendments are accepted, local authorities will be able to make control orders either in enforcing, the 1961 Act or where
the safety, welfare or health of persons living in the house".


is concerned. Under the Clause as it stands it is necessary for the local authority to be satisfied that the living conditions of the house are unsatisfactory. I have taken this point up with the Minister before and have pointed out that there queries are being raised about the phrase, because what is meant by "unsatisfactory"? In other words, it is a question of proceeding under the 1961 Act.

Sir K. Joseph: Would the hon. Lady give one or two examples of what she has in mind?

Mrs. Butler: The Minister has already been given examples. One such example led him to introduce the new Clause which we discussed last Thursday.

Sir K. Joseph: indicated assent

Mrs. Butler: The right hon. Gentle man indicates that he understands the sort of case I have in mind. In Park Avenue, Wood Green, a number of families were given notice to quit by the landlord, but when the local authority sought to take action under the 1961 Act difficulties immediately arose.

Sir K. Joseph: Further to that, there can be no doubt whatever that if the control order powers under the Bill had been available when that landlord acted, then the living conditions there would certainly have been such as to justify the local authority stepping in summarily and protecting the tenants.

Mrs. Butler: Nevertheless, the local authority was in doubt about the phrase concerning the living conditions being unsatisfactory.
My attention has also been drawn to another case about which the Minister knows. At 7, White Hart Lane, the landlord took very precipitant action in removing window frames, cutting off the electricity supply, and so on. Before he had taken that action the house was in a satisfactory condition. This is the difficulty I have in mind and the local authority is bound to hesitate before taking action. I see the Minister shaking his head in disagreement, but I can assure him that what I say is true and that local authorities are extremely concerned about correctly interpreting "unsatisfactory living conditions."
To accept the Amendments would not extend the principle of the Clause, a principle which has already been discussed and accepted by the Government. They make the position clearer. Unless the right hon. Gentleman makes the position clear beyond any doubt—and if he insists t pat in cases where local authorities are n doubt they must fall back on the old compulsory purchase order procedure—he must appreciate that something must be done to meet the cases which do not fall within the scope of the control order procedure. There will be some cases where the time lag will make it impossible for the local authority to catch the landlord.
I have just been given notice of a case in my constituency concerning a house which in multi-occupation. Five families were living there and when the local authority tried to implement the 1961 Act it had great difficulty in trying to find the landlord. Examples of this happening elsewhere have already been given. The note I have received from my local authority states that the tenants had rent books issued to them by Global Agencies, although the rent was being collected by a person alleged to be Mr. Gunraj. When the matter was taken up with Global Agencies the local authority etas informed that the letting of the premises had taken place by the former manager, without their authority, and that he had been dismissed.
The council proceeded to serve official notices on Mr. Gunraj who, it is alleged, then went to Switzerland. Upon examination of a dent book it was ascertained that a Mr. Stone, who is, apparently, the proper owner, had on three occasions collected the rent and signed the rent book. After the service of official notices and examination of the Land Registry, notices were served on the free-holders, Cedarville Investment Ltd., and it was ascertained that Gunraj Enterprises was the lessee on a five-year lease. Action was ultimately taken by Cedarville Investments Limited—Mr. Stone—and foreclosure obtained through the court. Everybody in the house was then given a written letter requesting possession, and all the families have now been evicted.
Unless this sort of case can be brought within the scope of the control order procedure difficulties will continue; and I


suggest that this sort of case will not be able to come within that procedure effectively unless the two Amendments we are discussing, particularly the second, are accepted. If the local authority tries to make a compulsory purchase order in the sort of case I have cited, four weeks will have to elapse during which the tenants can remain in occupation following a notice to quit being served. That period may elapse before the local authority can succeed in pinning down the owner of the property on whom to serve a compulsory purchase order.
It is important, therefore, that the Minister should accept the Amendments, or amend the Clause in another way, so that the control order procedure is made applicable to cases of this kind and so that doubt does not exist in the minds of local authorities on this issue. The only alternative is for the right hon. Gentleman to extend the compulsory notice to quit period for a longer time so that the local authority will be able to trace owners and take the necessary action. I hope, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will follow the course suggested by my hon. Friend and accept the Amendments.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), I wish to address myself mainly to the second Amendment we are discussing, although I hope that the Minister will accept both Amendments because the case argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) strengthens the principle of the Clause.
The Minister has asked for specific cases. He will be aware of the case which recently came to light in my constituency where a tenant was served an eviction notice. The tenant took the matter to the tribunal and his case was upheld. At that point the tenant was not evicted, of course, but there followed swingeing increases in his electricity bills—and they led to the tenant's eviction. I appreciate that the Minister has written to me explaining that in that case the landlord acted illegally and that the tenant should have resisted final eviction and stayed. Nevertheless, this widening of the powers of local authorities sug-

gested by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham would prevent this difficulty. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendments so that cases of this kind are easily dealt with by local authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham referred to intimidating landlords, the question of living conditions being the operative point, particularly when we consider some of the not so black cases of intimidation by landlords. I will not again refer to the case of snakes being put in the bath or itching powder in the bathroom. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of that case of two years ago. Cases of that type have not occurred to anything like that extent recently, but pressure is inevitable when there exists legislation like the 1957 Act, which caters for the decontrolling of premises. Landlords, particularly the more unpleasant types, are bound to want to get rid of tenants so that they can greatly increase their rents.
I hope that the Minister will appreciate the force of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham about the basic need for a feeling of security on the part of people who are living in controlled property, particularly the elderly. They have great fear when they are served with notices to quit, even if such notices are meaningless—as my hon. Friend pointed out—and there is often constant pressure on them to move out. This pressure may not be as bad as being attacked by an Alsatian dog, but particularly for an elderly person, life is intolerable when, night and day, they are reminded that they are not wanted. These cases come to my attention every Friday evening at my constituency "clinics".
From all points of view the Amendments would give added strength to the Bill and enable local authorities to act without worrying about whether or not they are within their rights. They would strengthen and widen the Clause in a desirable way and I hope that the Minister will accept them.

Mr. MacDermot: If the Minister proposes to recommend to the House the rejection of the second Amendment, I should like to know why he wants left in the words
…that the living conditions in the house are such…


that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) proposes should be left out.
Take the example given a moment ago by my lion. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), in which an order has already been made under Section 12 of the 1961 Act and, in consequence of that, the landlord then serves notice to quit and tries, with intimidation or without it, to get rid of the tenant. The Minister said in his intervention that he felt confident that in such a case the existing wording of the Clause would be satisfied, namely, that the local authority would be able to say that the living conditions of the house were such that it was necessary to make the control order.
If that is more than just guesswork, it would seem that the Minister is assuming that the effect of the words in the Clause would be the same as the effect of the words in the 1961 Act which would provide the basis for an order under that Act. However, when one compares Section 12 of the 1961 Act with this Clause the tests seem to be rather different. For example, under the Section 12 order the local authority has to be satisfied that the premises, or part of it,
…is in an unsatisfactory state in consequence of failure to maintain proper standards of management…
When a local authority is trying to make up its mind whether to make a control order—which is a serious step to take, and one which, if the local authority takes it wrongly, may involve it in heavy costs in subsequent legal proceedings ceedings—a matter that will cause it to hesitate is whether the conditions that satisfy the tests of being in an unsatisfactory state for the purpose of Section 12 of the 1961 Act would equally pass the test in court proceedings of being conditions that are such that it is necessary to make a control order.
…in order to protect the safety, health or welfare of persons living in the house.
These are different words, and, because of that, a court would tend to construe them as meaning different things.
If the first Amendment is rejected and we are considering the second Amendment on its own, then, before the local authority would be able to make a control order at all it would have to be satisfied that the requirements of

the 1961 Act were fulfilled so that it could make an order under that Act; be satisfies, in other words, that the state of the premises was sufficiently unsatisfactory for that purpose. If, in addition to that, the local authority also feels on any ground that it is necessary to make a control order to protect the safety, welfare or health of persons living in the house, why should it not be allowed to make the order?
The Minister asks for examples, but I would invite him to give an example of a case in which paragraphs (a) and (b) would be satisfied, and where (c) would be satisfied if the second Amendment were accepted, yet where he thinks that it would be wrong to give the local authority power to make the control order.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: I was rather astonished to hear the Minister resist the Amendments. Above all, was I surprised to hear a repetition of the observation, "Either it cannot be true, or will not be true very shortly, so please give me examples." The Minister at any rate knows—however thinly attended the debate was—that in the last major debate on housing, on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, he heard from me in the early hours of the morning a succession of examples of the kind he declared did not happen—

Sir K. Joseph: I am not seeking to deny things, but this is, as I shall seek to show, rather a complicated affair, and in trying to answer it helps me to know what particular cases hon. Members have in mind.

Mr. Parkin: I am very relieved to hear that statement, because I felt sure that after having had an opportunity of studying examples, and reflecting on arguments, the Minister would come back with at least a workable alternative proposal. I am sure that he does not wish to let the Bill leave our hands merely as a "Sanitary Inspectors (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill". I am sure that he wants to catch up on all the points that he himself announced were to be covered when the Bill was first printed—that this was to be a Bill against Rachmanism.
I have to repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that Rachmanism is not about plumbing, but about intimidation and eviction, and that unless he gets into the Bill a weapon that the local authorities can use against the man who is illicitly trying to secure evictions he will have failed in the purpose of the Bill and we shall have failed to convince him with the examples that are constantly coming into our hands.
The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that in that Third Reading debate on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill I offered him three examples of lawyers' letters which were indistinguishable the one from the other. One came on behalf of Rachman, and one came on behalf of a rascal who was concealing the fact that he was acting on behalf of his father and had received a large sum of money to house the man he was then purporting to evict. The third was a lawyer's letter that I have already used in this House, so I need not rub salt in the wound. I still maintain that each of those lawyers should have been in the dock, accused of conspiracy to demand with menaces with intent to steal, because that is what such a letter is; it is an attempt to deceive a tenant into leaving a tenancy, the security of which should be guaranteed to him.
The Minister and his advisers, who framed the Bill, thought in terms of surveys and registers and the job to be put on the already overburdened public health officers of local authorities. It is possible to do a survey fairly quickly by counting the number of toilets and seeing how they relate to the number of inhabitants in the house, but it is quite impossible for a local authority to take the initiative, and send someone round to ask, "Is the landlord kind to you, or does he make rude remarks when you pay the rent?" It is impossible to make any kind of general survey of these elusive attitudes.
I can give the Minister three further examples that have come into my hands this weekend. One of them has occurred in the area of what I think is now called Camden and may begin to have an influence on the opinion of electors. This happened to a young man employed on the lower rungs in an organisation in which, in due course, he is likely to have

a substantial position and a substantial income. He has a wife and a daughter. He was one week behind on a rent of eight guineas—

Mr. Frank Allaun: Eight guineas.

Mr. Parkin: Eight guineas—for one room.
He came home from work to find a note from the landlord saying, "I am not disposed to chase the rent. I have relet your room. I want you out by mid-day tomorrow. "He found his wife in a state of collapse—

Mr. Frank Allaun: My hon. Friend will excuse my interrupting—I am only a provincial lad—but is he suggesting that it is possible to get eight guineas a week, and more, for a single room in London today?

Mr. Parkin: I am not an expert in the rents payable in the constituency of the previous Minister of Housing, but I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to supply my hon. Friend with information about the success of the Rent Act.
5.0 p.m.
I will give another example that came to my knowledge this weekend, which is, to me, more tragic. It is the case of a Maltese immigrant, a respectable, skilled and reasonably well-paid pastry-cook living in one of the Rachman houses in St. Stephen's Gardens, Paddington. It was owned by one of the Rachman associates, who is still alive and prospering. This immigrant and his family paid £9 a week for a room and kitchen. But they were not allowed to stay there very long. Interesting things about the rent book were that £36 rent was payable in advance and there were £43 in fees, and so on, in relation to the letting of this squalid accommodation. After a few weeks the family was thrown out. It may well have been thrown out because the landlord is a man of high moral principles, because, in the meantime, her husband—and I do not know the details, though I can well understand the general influence of our way of life on such a man—was by now in prison. This is the kind of broken, demoralised family that results from the working of the Government's policy.
We have had these two examples this weekend, since I last had the opportunity of pressing this matter on the right hon. Gentleman. In the one case there was a perfectly successful young man in Hampstead who had every hope of being able to pay his way. He got married too soon, they had a child too soon, he was paying too much, he got one week behind with the rent, and he had to be out by the next day. The terrible thing was that such was the distress of his wife that they went.
This is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart)—that they go, that they think they will have enough to do to find accommodation and they ask themselves what point there is in going to court to fight for another month, assuming that they can employ lawyers. What about the thick file I passed to the Minister with that wonderful record of the softening up of a tenant of the Church Commissioners? The end of that was most tragic, because the barristers and solicitors withdrew. They said that the judge would grant possession, and he did. This was not a case of a house where the public health inspector would have to see whether there was a bath or toilet.
This kind of trouble is still going on. I have not come here to repeat arguments and old cases. These are cases from last week's mail. I hope that I shall not have to say all this many more times and that today the Minister will say that he accepts that on equal terms with plumbing he has to find a way of dealing with intimidation and the illicit eviction of tenants. I hope that he will today answer a question which I asked last time we debated this matter. I hope that he will say whether he has given, or will give, thought to finding a formula which can be transferred to a rent book giving someone who is taking alternative accommodation the same controlled right of tenancy that he had in the dwelling which he has had to vacate.
I had not intended to speak on this occasion, which I observed was one when the intimidation problem would be raised, because I was sure that the Minister would say that he had the answer. I have been disappointed with

what the right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of the debate. I hope that now he will say something very different before we part with the Amendments.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Whilst the Amendment would do a little to help, would my hon. Friend agree that, as long as the Rent Act still exists, the astounding and terrible things which he has told us will continue quite legally?

Mr. Parkin: I have not been making my speech to my hon. Friend, but to the Minister of Housing, who is a Tory, who is devoted to certain principles and who is a man who honestly had not known about these things. I am beginning to wish that the right hon. Gentleman had looked a little more carefully and a little sooner at these matters. I am trying to extract from him a workable policy within the framework of his own philosophy and of the Bill, which is the best that we can hope from the present Government.
I am not using this occasion to make remarks about the Rent Act. It may well be that the advice that I urge upon the Minister will still prove inadequate, but that does not mean that he should refuse to adopt these measures. He should snatch at every piece of information and every advice that he can find to restore some confidence in the good intentions of the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman has done a surprising thing in the last few weeks. All these years we have been prepared to say, "Not even he"—meaning we all know who—"could really have envisaged the results of the Rent Act as shown in the Rachman affair". No one could believe it. Nobody intended it, and surely we all want to put it right. But now the right hon. Gentleman has formally and solemnly re-endorsed the policy of creeping decontrol, which is a standing temptation to every landlord to secure evictions other than by the normal process of departure and death. I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to pull distasteful faces at that, otherwise I shall have to begin all over again.
It will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to pretend that these things are not happening. They are happening every day of our Parliamentary lives. This is an irresistible temptation


to try to get more possession. It is a method by which the bad landlord can get rich quicker than the good landlord who wants honestly to use all the grants and the rest of the provisions in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman must accept that, having endorsed once again the policy of creeping decontrol, he should be spending more time in dealing with the possibilities of eviction than in dealing with toilets and other amenities.

Mr. Albert Evans: I was encouraged to speak when the Minister asked for actual cases to illustrate the point of the Amendments. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes such cases, so that he can see this matter from the point of view of the tenants and that of those of us who have to face these problems in our constituencies. Although, on another occasion, he seemed to suggest that we did not know the facts of life in these matters, I take it that he is now quite sincere in welcoming evidence of actual cases being given to the House.
The Amendments mean that we wish to give the local authority power to make a control order on grounds that may not appear to be material. We wish to allow the local authority to make a control order if it thinks that it needs to protect the safety, health and welfare of people in the house. It might well be that the house is technically passable, that the fabric is not all that bad, but that the question of the safety, health and welfare of its occupants is a serious matter.
I should like to illustrate this point. A house in my constituency was bought about three years ago by a new land-lord. He immediately set out to make the lives of the tenants quite intolerable. He had a key and he walked in and out of the house at all times of the day and even after midnight. He proceeded to bring as many as five or six of his colleagues into the house. These men pushed their way in and proceeded to march about the place, to use the sanitary conveniences, and generally to make themselves troublesome and difficult and to disturb the right of the tenants to peaceful occupancy. That happened. It went on week after week. Technically, it was arguable whether

or not the condition of that house was in bad condition.

Sir K. Joseph: Is the hon. Gentleman speaking of a house which is technically multi-occupied?

Mr. Evans: Yes, certainly. This Clause deals with that type of house, and may I say that we are now dealing in the Clause with the worst kind of house that one finds, particularly in the older parts of London.
We plead with the Minister to recognise that such cases do arise where the local authority may not be able to point out with any certainty that part of the fabric requires any great attention, but where it knows from information supplied to it—and in this case the information was quite sound and came from more than one source—that although the fabric may not be very bad, nevertheless, to use the words on which we wish to hang our Amendment, the "safety, welfare and health" of the occupants of the house are in danger and need to be protected.

Sir K. Joseph: I am puzzled. Was this property a controlled property? If not, the landlord could have given notice, could he not, instead of seeking to force the tenants to leave?

Mr. Evans: Most of this house was controlled property and the people living there had been there for a long time. I repeat that it is a deplorable type of property, but in this case it was arguable whether or not on technical grounds, on grounds of the deterioration of the fabric, amenities, the supply of water, and so forth, the local authority would be justified in going to the length of imposing a control order. The council had information about what was going on in the house, about the activities of this rather brutal landlord and his colleagues, and it would appear to any reasonable person that, apart from the material state of the house, there was the question of whether the lives of the occupants needed protection.
I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that although cases of this kind may be few, they certainly exist. There are cases where the council would be fully justified in placing a control order on a house solely on the grounds that the activities of the landlord made unhappy the lives of the occupants. In


such a case the council would be quite justified in putting a control order on the house.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for information of particular cases and I rose merely to give him this information. I want him to tell us, if he will, what local authorities can do when faced with cases of this sort. Do not such conditions justify a council in putting a control order on a house?

Sir K. Joseph: This has been an important debate and I am sorry for dealing with a relatively trivial matter before I answer it. I wish to ask permission to put right a very unusual error in the OFFICIAL REPORT of Our last proceedings. I am on record as saying:
Of course, any Housing Minister is honestly wicked while a shortage remains…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1964 Vol. 692, c. 1267.]
Just in case any hon. Members opposite wanted to ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether that expressed Government policy, I should like to put on record what I said. What I said was:
Of course, any Housing Minister is on a sticky wicket while a shortage remains."*
5.15 p.m.
This is quite a debate to try to answer, and I shall endeavour to deal with all the points which have been made. It allows me to introduce at the very start what is the key factor here, and that is the condition of shortage. Even hon. Members opposite, with all their undoubtedly sincere fervour, cannot wave that away. The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) said that creeping control was a standing temptation to the bad landlord. I must say that it is, in fact, rent control that is the temptation. The example given by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans), in the speech which he has just made, proves this In conditions of shortage there are bound to be temptations to give security to some people, and the Government have thought it right to do that. But to give security for some people makes it harder for others to get accommodation.
What we have to do is to increase the accommodation. That is why, behind all this discussion, I hope that it is in
* [Note: This correction has been made in cot 1267.]
the minds of hon. Members that we are dealing with an extremely serious short-term problem, the answer to which is the proper distribution of jobs and homes to which the Government's contribution is the South-East Study. I will leave that back ground and proceed now to the points made. I always take the speeches of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) very seriously, but never more seriously than when he starts them with a compliment to myself.
Let me try to unwrap what these Amendments are about. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will dispute this analogy. What they are about are houses that are decently managed, that are multi-occupied, but which, for multi-occupied houses, are reasonably equipped—not one lavatory for every family, not one bath for every family, because they would not be multi-occupied if there were, but with a reasonable amount of sanitary accommodation, with a reasonable facility for fire escape, and, as I say, decently managed and with good living conditions. We are asked to consider how to protect the safety, welfare and health of tenants in this sort of multi-occupied property.
The hon. Member for Fulham—

Mr. MacDermot: Surely, what the right hon. Gentleman is developing at the moment is the answer to the argument for both Amendments being taken together. Is that right?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, I shall deal with them both together and separately.
The hon. Member for Fulham acknowledged the weapon which we are discussing here and which the Amendments seek to extend. A control order is a very powerful weapon indeed. The advice I am given is that it is the most powerful invasion of property rights in peace time since the dissolution of the monasteries. I have not checked this myself, but that is the advice I am given.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten the 1915 Rent Restriction Act?

Sir K. Joseph: In peace time, I said. It is limited to multi-occupied property, and limited in the way which the Committee has described, to multi-occupied
property which justifies the use of the 1961 Act and where the living conditions are such as to justify the summary intervention of the local authority for the protection, safety, welfare or health of the tenants. These are the three backgrounds which I want to state—first, shortage; secondly, that the Amendments ask us to deal with the safety, welfare and health of the tenants, if decently and well equipped, in multi-occupied property where good living conditions are provided; and thirdly, what the Bill provides.
I now want to come on to the living reality behind this. I think that the hon. Member for Paddington, North will agree that landlords who take advantage of shortage and who "sweat" property generally provide bad value for money. They provide bad living conditions with inadequate sanitation and other conveniences and they charge a lot for it. It is quite true that Rachmanism is more than bad plumbing, but it is also true that Rachmanism exists in order to make money. One makes money in this sort of activity by providing bad conditions and charging what might make sense in good conditions. Therefore, it is absolutely improbable that these sort of people would operate, when they have provided good conditions and decent management, and then harry and intimidate the tenant.

Mr. Manuel: Will the Minister recognise that this whole matter is tied up to Sections 14, 15 and 19 of the 1961, Act? If he reads Sections 14 and 15 and sees the repairs and alterations which are necessary, he could not say that they are reasonable living quarters.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is not following me. I was saying that the Amendments are needed only where the 1961 Act cannot be invoked—that is to say, where neither Section 12 which relates to good management, Sections 14, 15 nor 16 can be invoked. If the conditions are bad the control order powers apply, provided that living conditions also are bad. I think I carry the House with me so far.

Mrs. Butler: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that if the 1961 Act can be invoked, the living conditions are automatically bad? This is the nub of the question.

Sir K. Joseph: I have to be careful here because there could be marginal cases. The 1961 Act could be invoked for a very marginal justification, I suppose, in which case the living conditions under the later part of the Clause could be tolerable. I shall try to deal with this problem in a few moments.
Obviously if there are grossly bad failures of works or management, the 1961 Act can be invoked and the living conditions would also be bad. Also if the 1961 Act provisions were needed in general—not marginally at all—certainly the living conditions can be assumed to be bad. I shall come to the case which the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) so effectively put.
At this stage I ought to explain why the Government cannot, even after all the reasons that I have given, advise the House to accept these Amendments. What would be the harm? I have a lot of reasons, but let me first mention this one. This is a very drastic power, and the more drastic a power is, the more carefully it should be circumscribed. We are going to give this power to 1,500 different local authorities with honourably and understandably different levels of judgment. It seems to me that if we accept these Amendments, we are going to give them the power to impose control orders on property which is decently managed, though multi-occupied, which is well-equipped and where the living conditions are good. They will have the power to impose control orders for the safety, welfare and health of the tenants for any old reason they wish.

An Hon. Member: Does the right hon. Gentleman trust them?

Sir K. Joseph: It is one thing to ask whether I trust local authorities. Of course, the Minister of Housing is always defending local authorities and saying that he must trust them, and he does; but this is not to argue that Parliament should provide an unprecedented power without limiting it in some way. What the two Amendments in combination would do would be to remove all limits, except subjectively, from the local authorities. There would remain no objective limitation whatsoever. The conditions would be good, and so would the management and the equipment. The objective limitation disappears altogether.

Mr. A. Evans: Surely the local authority has got to satisfy itself that the safety, welfare and health of the persons living in a house are in danger? The local authority would not go in for any old reason. The Minister would not act in an irresponsible way, and neither would the local authority. I suggest that in many of these cases one has to trust the good judgment of the local authority.

Sir K. Joseph: We are seeking to pass a Statute, and it seems to me that we must put objective guidance to the local authorities.

Mr. Parkin: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken feelingly about his responsibility in giving powers to local authorities. Is it not the case that his Government gave to landlords powers, unpredecented for half a century, to throw out people from their dwellings for any old reason they wished? Is it not time the right hon. Gentleman paid more attention to constructing a code of behaviour for landlords rather than worrying himself about a code of behaviour for tenants?

Sir K. Joseph: .: No, I do not accept that at all. The rent control was imposed because of the war. It was not in the natural conduct of affairs. Normally what we hope to have is a surplus of dwellings so that tenants have a choice of dwellings so that tenants have a choice. This is what we are working towards again. Since the Rent Act was passed, the acceleration in the rate of family and household formation—do not let hon. Members dispose of these real problems so easily—younger marriages and longer survival have made the problem worse. It is a problem that remains.
Let me get back to the argument. These Amendments start on the assumption that the conditions are good. Hon. Members seek to give examples of where a control order is needed to protect the tenants, although the conditions are good, and the management, equipment and accommodation are good. Against what do they want the Government to protect the tenants? There are two or three different dangers. There is first the possibility that the landlord simply does not like the tenant. This comes very near to a landlord-tenant quarrel. Hon. Members from time to time have

sent me cases asking for the invocation of the local authority powers, and when I have been in touch with the local authority the confidential reply has been, "This is six of one and half a dozen of the other. There is a quarrel between this landlord and his tenant." I do not think the House would feel that there is a case for using this sort of control order power in such circumstances.
Then there is the case where the landlord wants to get rid of the tenant in order to get a higher rent—and this is the most frequent reason—as in the case put by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West, though in that case the tenants were completely protected if they relied upon the protection given by the law.
Here I have to say to the hon. Member for Wood Green—because this is her case—that the compulsory purchase order procedure by the local authority is a safeguard and it is a much stronger safeguard since the new Clause which the House accepted last Thursday. The only weak less in the compulsory purchase order procedure to deal with the sort of case which the hon. Lady put forward, where management, accommodation and living conditions are good, but where the landlord of multiple-occupied property empties his house, is that in four weeks, which is the protection given to tenants within which they need not accept an eviction notice, the local authority may not be able to identify the owner so as to serve a compulsory purchase order.
5.30 p.m.
As the House will remember, we have been over this ground before. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) was absolutely right last July when he said that if a local authority wished to serve a compulsory purchase order and could not identify the owner then it could under that procedure pin the order on the premises. It would be a sufficient service of the compulsory purchase order, within the four weeks during which tenants are given protection, if it did that. That would invoke the new Clause which gives the tenant security, subject to a court order, for a period up to nine months, while the compulsory purchase order is going to the Minister. I am not saying that my hon. Friend was right in suggesting


that the pinning of the notice on the premises would suffice for a summary acquisition under compulsory purchase order procedure. It is only part of the compulsory purchase order procedure which can be invoked in just the case which the hon. Member for Wood Green gave as an example.
At this stage, I must meet the point put by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), who raised a number of serious and important examples of what may well be abuses, and as he knows, I have taken different action on each of them. But I do not know whether the property concerned was multi-occupied. If it was multi-occupied, I am almost certain that it would have lent itself to the 1961 Act procedure. I am sure that that sort of property is not adequately equipped with all the works that the 1961 Act requires, and therefore the control order would be invoked if it was multi-occupied property. If it was not multi-occupied property, the Amendments would be irrelevant.
As for the case referred to by the hon Member for Paddington, North—which was previously raised by him during the debate at about 3 o'clock in the morning some three months ago—I am pursuing the evidence of sharp legal practice which he then gave to me in the House. Again, this does not necessarily tie up with multi-occupation or these Amendments. It is a different problem which I must pursue, if necessarily, quite separately. I am willing to do so, and I am doing so.
I hope that I have shown that so far there has not been any evidence whatsoever that in the cases covered by these Amendments there is a danger that we can block in this way. If the living conditions are good, if the accommodation is adequately equipped in multi-occupied property, the compulsory purchase order protects the tenant from eviction if there is a threat of it. If those conditions are not good, if the accommodation is not properly equipped, the control order bites.
Now I come possibly to the hardest case of all, but there is one matter that I should like to deal with first. They have not been mentioned today, but it has been very much in my mind, that

some examples have been given of bad landlords who, in their desire to get controlled tenants out, cut off the gas or the electricity. I want to reassure hon. Members that in such circumstances the control order would be able to bite in multi-occupied property, because any such conduct by the landlord would be bad management, sufficient to invoke Section 12 of the 1961 Act and would certainly be bad living conditions as specified in line 18 of page 69 of the Bill. So let no one have a worry on that account.
There still remains the case, perfectly fairly put by the hon. Member for Fulham, where, despite all these remedies being available, a sharp landlord gets what he wants because the tenant, understandably, particularly the elderly or the blind tenant, gives in. I want to bring it home to hon. Members, as the hon. Member for Fulham fairly admitted, that not even these Amendments would be of any jolly use if the tenants will not react to the landlord's demands. If a tenant reacts to the landlord's demands or behaviour and they come under Clause 68, then the control order applies. If the tenant reacts to the landlord's demands and they do not quite come under Clause 68 for one of the reasons that I have given, either the tenant is fully protected—that is the case of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, South-West—or a C.P.O. can be applied—that is the case which the hon. Member for Wood Green gave as an example. Ultimately, we depend upon the tenant using his rights. That is equally true of the man to whom the hon. Member for Paddington, North referred, the £8 a week tenant, who because his wife, understandably again, was intensely worried, left at once without examining what his rights were or going to the local authority. We cannot, whatever we do in Statutes, protect people who will not trigger off the various procedures available to them.
For all these reasons, I must say that the case has not been proved for the necessity of extending these very strong powers without giving them some objective limitation. We have in the Bill protected the people who are in danger of being evicted during the compulsory purchase order procedure. We have imposed these strong control order powers. I would point out to the House that the vast


bulk of the complaints that have come to me and all the publicity have been associated with the sweated multi-occupied property where bad value for high money has been blackmailed out of tenants by bad landlords. In all those cases, the control order bites, and where the control order does not bite the compulsory purchase order procedure or the existing rights of the tenant should be adequate protection. I hope that the Amendments will not be pressed.

Mr. MacDermot: Would the right hon. Gentleman perhaps answer me a question which I put to him before on the assumption that we are considering the second Amendment alone? All his arguments so far have been directed to answering the arguments of both the Amendments being taken together. If one considers the second Amendment alone, then one is dealing with the case where there is either bad management or the place is not adequately equipped because the conditions in either (a) or (b) still have to be satisfied. In such a case, why does he also want the requirement that the local authorities are satisfied that the living conditions are such that it is necessary to make a control order to protect safety, welfare or health?
As to the conditions of the house, surely either (a) or (b) is sufficient, and if that is satisfied then he can trust the local authorities with a general power that they must also be satisfied that it is necessary to make a control order to protect safety, welfare or health on quite general grounds, without confining it to living conditions.
The right hon. Gentleman may recall that I was asking him to give an example where the conditions would be sufficiently had to satisfy either (a) or (b), but where it would not be safe to trust the local authority with a general power and he would also require them to be satisfied that the living conditions required a control order.

Sir K. Joseph: I am sorry that I did not play that volley back earlier during my main speech, as I should have done. It is not I who have put down Amendments. The hon. Member for Fulham has put down two Amendments and he asked that the House should consider them both together.

Mr. MacDermot: I am now asking about the second one.

Sir K. Joseph: I am very willing—indeed, I am anxious—to consder any cases where it can be shown that the tenant needs protection in multi-occupied property which will escape any one of the different safeguards—control order procedure, compulsory purchase order or the invocation of existing rights—which I have mentioned. It is for hon. Gentlemen who back these Amendments either severally or in combination to show such cases. It is not for me to give examples.
I am advised that the example given by the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green would be covered by a compulsory purchase order. The hon. Lady was so advised, too. The only problem was identifying the owner on whom the order would be served, and I have given an answer to that. I must, therefore, ask that, if the Government are to consider any change at a later stage, evidence must be given to back the second Amendment on its own even if evidence cannot be given to justify the two together.

Mr. Erie Fletcher: I want to meet the right hon. Gentleman on his own ground and give him some further instances which have not yet been considered but which justify the Amendments. Hitherto, we have been dealing with cases of intimidation or victimisation by landlords, the Rachman type of case, in regard to which the Minister has argued that the tenant already has sufficient protection either under the Clause as it stands or under the compulsory purchase order procedure. The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that the main question with which we are dealing arises in shortage. He went on to say that the operation of the Clause is confined to houses in multi-occupation and we have got to consider cases which are both well-managed and adequately equipped and in which the tenant is not exposed to any excessive demands for increased rent.
In view of his impatience to hear about it, I shall give the Minister examples of a type of case which seems to me to cause great hardship particularly in Islington and other parts of London. This is the case in which a landlord deliberately and vexatiously leaves rooms in his house unoccupied for a very long time. One such case came to my notice on Friday. In my


constituency in Islington, there is a family consisting of husband and wife and three children—two boys of 14 and 7 and a girl of 12—occupying one room where they all sleep and a kitchen which they share with a mother-in-law. Their tenancy is rent-controlled. They can afford to pay more rent than they are paying. There is no complaint that the house is not adequately equipped and, therefore, the house does not fall within the compulsory purchase provisions.
For years and years, this family has been begging the landlord to let them have possession, at, of course, an increased rent, of some of the three unoccupied rooms in that house. Instead of doing so, the landlord has consistently refused, as he is entitled to do. The result is that this family of five is living and sleeping in conditions of desperate overcrowding.
The Minister knows very well that, with the best will in the world, neither the London County Council nor the borough council can find accommodation in that class of case, because they have to give priority to applicants on the housing list whose conditions are bad because of dampness and all the rest.

Sir K. Joseph: I think that I can dispose of this quickly. I must leave myself free on the merits of any particular case, but, in general, it is open to a housing authority to make a compulsory purchase order on a house if it can by that means increase its housing stock. I cannot comment on the particular case which the hon. Gentleman has put, but that is a weapon which is generally available.

Mr. Fletcher: The Minister knows that it is not, in practice, used in this type of case. We are here trying to strengthen the provisions which are open to local authorities to give protection and better facilities to families placed as this one is in Islington. I am arguing that, if the Amendment were accepted, it would be open to the local authority under the Clause to make a control order—that is what we want; we want to use this procedure, not the compulsory purchase order—so as to bring within the control of the authority rooms in houses in multi-occupation which are deliberately

kept vacant year by year thereby causing families living in other parts of the premises to continue to live in conditions of serious overcrowding.
This is not an isolated example. It is typical of several in Islington and elsewhere which have come to my notice recently. It was not a type of case dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech. I believe that, if the Amendment were accepted, it would enable local authorities in such cases to use powers under the control order procedure because, by taking possession of vacant rooms which have been vacant for a long time, they could thereby be taking steps
to protect the safety, welfare and health of persons living in the house.
This is one reason, apart from the others which have been mentioned, why I support the Amendment. The Amendment is necessary in cases of this kind, apart from all the others, in order to prevent the disreputable and vexatious practice of landlords in various parts of London deliberately keeping rooms in a house empty year after year.

Mr. E. Partridge: Why should they do that?

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: Landlords are aware of the shortage. They know that, in time, they may be able, by one means or another, to get possession of the remainder of the house and thus be able to deal with it to their financial advantage. But this is an anti-social reason. It seems to us all wrong that, in conditions of acute shortage, whatever the reason may be, landlords should have the power to do it. I have thought for a long time that the only remedy for this kind of abuse is to give the local authority power to step in and take possession.
The right hon. Gentleman tells us that it can be dealt with under the compulsory purchase procedure. I very much doubt that there have been any cases in which those provisions have been used in the circumstances such as I have mentioned of part of a house being kept unoccupied. It is essential that, if the abuse is to be dealt with satisfactorily, local authorities have the power which we are asking that they be given by the Amendment.

Mr. MacColl: The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that he always distrusted my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) when he paid him a compliment. I am always alarmed when the right hon. Gentleman tells us, as he often does, that his speech will be a long one. I never find that the right hon. Gentleman's most incisive and clear speeches are those which take him some time to deliver. In this case, he revealed a state of hopeless confusion about what is essentially a fairly straightforward question.
The right hon. Gentleman taunted us by saying that we could not easily dispose of the problem by what we proposed. We do not for a moment think that we can dispose of the real problem by this Amendment taken by itself. Our whole attitude to the problem is that we have got to increase the number of different instruments which are available. We must increase the flexibility of the instruments so that the local authority has a variety of instruments which it can use in different situations.
It is not our fault that we were not able to make a more direct approach to the problem. We tried by a new Clause to strike in terms of criminal proceedings at the whole problem of intimidation, but we were not able to pursue this within the context of the Bill. We must, therefore, look at the matter within the narrow limits of the control order procedure, which not we but the Minister constructed, and see what changes can be made in the definition of the Clause to make it more suitable for the real purpose.
The right hon. Gentleman says that our proposal would give discretion to 1,500 local authorities. That is a little disingenuous. In the first place, he started by saying that this was only a temporary problem. I do not believe that it is. I do not believe that even the South-East Survey or a host of regional surveys will really solve the problem of the housing shortage as easily as that. This is a problem which will be with us for a long time. I am not complacent about it and I am not terribly optimistic about it.
The Minister went on to say that this was a temporary problem. It is also a problem which affects only local

authorities which have houses in multi-occupation in their areas. A whole host of local authorities do not have this problem; they are not faced with these difficulties. On the whole, as the right hon. Gentleman often tells us, it is in the large authority areas, the big urban areas, that this is an acute problem.
What is the weakness of the present definition of a control order? I want to consider the matter, because I find myself somewhat at odds with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot). It is rather dangerous to try to cross swords with my hon. and learned Friend, but the Minister and I have this in common: we are both rather bastard lawyers. Therefore, possibly we are entitled to look at this problem without worrying too much about what comes from the experts.
What the Minister was saying was that a management order was necessary only in conditions where the property was not decently managed. We must look at the words which the right hon. Gentleman paraphrases as "decently managed" Section 12 says:
If it appears to a local authority that a house which…is let in lodgings…is in an unsatisfactory state in consequence of failure to maintain proper standards of management".
and so on. In other words, it is not possible to bring the house within the mischief of Section 12 and the local authority cannot make a management order under it unless the house is affected. There is no mention of the state or conditions of the tenants. The Section is directed to the state of the house as affected by bad management. If the management does not clear up the slops or remove the paper after the Saturday night binge on the common staircase, the local authority can point to something and say, "There is something wrong with the house and we can intervene". But if the staircases are clean but the tenants are absolutely terrified and live in mortal fear of what will happen to them, there is nothing to bring the house within Section 12.
When against that background we look at Clause 68 the first thing which we find is that two conditions have to be fulfilled. First, either that an order has been made under the 1961 Act, or could be made, and, secondly, that the


living conditions are such that it is necessary to make the order to protect the safety, welfare and health of the people in the house. That is why my hon. Friend is right in saying that we must have these two Amendments together, because we have to do two things. First, we have to get rid of the conjunctive and put a disjunctive in its place so that these are alternative conditions and not supplementary conditions which have to be fulfilled. Secondly, we must cut out the reference to "living conditions" in line 18 to make the Clause more general.
The Minister says that we must have some kind of objective test for these drastic powers. The trouble about having an objective test is that immediately we rule out from protection conditions which affect the morale of the tenant but which do not necessarily affect the cleanliness or sanitary conditions of the house. That is precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) meant when he said that Rachmanism was not about plumbing.
We must look mainly at three things. First, there are the outright threats of violence. There is the case where the landlord either directly himself or through his hired thug threatens to beat up the tenants unless they do what he says and all sorts of other things in order to protect himself from proceedings. Secondly, there are threats of eviction and the landlord, as soon as there is the whisper of trouble, immediately gives notice to quit.
But there is a third difficult problem which we must tackle, and that concerns wilful deception about the status of the tenants and their legal rights. There is a whole line of operations in this respect. There is the writing of the letter to the tenant saying that he is not subject to the Rent Act protection when he is. There is the letter which is written when somebody gets an order to do certain works or there is a proposal to inspect and which says, "The local authority is ordering us to get you out". What is meant is, "The

local authority is ordering us to manage your property a little more humanely and decently". These are the sorts of problems which arise and which do not necessarily affect the physical conditions of the house but which should be subject to protection.

The Minister says, "If the tenant will not play, what can you do about it, even if you know that?" The point is that here there is a means whereby one can take the initiative. The Member of Parliament, the councillor, the public health inspector all know what is going on in these houses. They know the fear and terror being struck into the people in them, but because the people are too scared even to go to the Citizen's Advice Bureau because of the risk of reprisals no one cat take the initial step. This would provide an immediate lead for the local authority, without waiting for formal complaints, to move in with this drastic power to which the Minister has referred.

What is happening is very clear. The Minister is fighting a rearguard action to keep the Rent Act. That is really what is behind all this. The right hon. Gentleman spoke on Thursday about the need to increase compulsory purchase orders. Now we have what he describes as the most drastic intervention in the rights of private property owners since the dissolution of the monasteries.—[Interruption.]—All right, in peace time. I will not quarrel with a Fellow of All Souls about history, but whether the dissolution of the monasteries took place in conditions of peace, I do not know. The Minister will throw overboard all these absolutely vital principles—he said that it was embarrassing for Tory Ministers to have to do it—in order to keep the sacred right of the landlord to oppress and persecute the tenant for the sake of what he calls a free property market but what we call extortion and slavery.

Question put, That "and" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 169.

Division No. 69.]
AYES
[6.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Ashton, Sir Hubert
Barter, John


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)


Allason, James
Balniel, Lord
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald




Biffen, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Bingham, R. M.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Partridge, E.


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Peel, John


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Hay, John
Percival, Ian


Bourne-Arton, A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hiley, Joseph
Pitt, Dame Edith


Braine, Bernard
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Prior, J. M. L.


Brewis, John
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hollingworth, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hopkins, Alan
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James


Buck, Antony
Hornby, R. P.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bullard, Denys
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Ridsdale, Julian


Burden, F. A.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Roots, William


Campbell, Gordon
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cary, Sir Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Channon, H. P. G.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Seymour, Leslie


Chichester-Clark, R.
James, David
Sharples, Richard


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Shaw, M.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Jennings, J. C.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Cleaver, Leonard
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Cole, Norman
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Stainton, Keith


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Stevens, Geoffrey


Corfield, F. V.
Kershaw, Anthony
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Coulson, Michael
Kimball, Marcus
Storey, Sir Samuel


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Kirk, Peter
Studholme, Sir Henry


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kitson, Timothy
Tapsell, Peter


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Curran, Charles
Leavey, J. A.
Teeling, Sir William


Currie, G. B. H.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Temple, John M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lilley, F. J. P.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dance, James
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Thomas Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'd field)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Drayson, G. B.
Longbottom, Charles
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Duncan, Sir James
Loveys, Walter H.
Turner, Colin


Eden, Sir John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Elliott, R. W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
MacArthur, Ian
Vickers, Miss Joan


Farr, John
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Walker, Peter


Finlay, Graeme
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Walker-Smith Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Fisher, Nigel
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Wall, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maitland, Sir John
Ward, Dame Irene


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Freeth, Denzil
Mawby, Ray
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Gammans, Lady
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Stratton
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wise, A. R.


Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Morrison, John
Woollam, John


Green, Alan
Neave, Airey
Worsley, Marcus


Gurden, Harold
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie



Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. McLaren and Mr. Batsford


Harris, Reader (Heston)






NOES


Ainsley, William
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dempsey, James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brockway, A. Fenner
Dodds, Norman


Bacon, Miss Alice
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Doig, Peter


Barnett, Guy
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Duffy, A. E. P. (Coine Valley)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Carmichael, Neil
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.


Bence, Cyril
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Edelman, Maurice


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Chapman, Donald
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cliffe, Michael
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)


Benson, Sir George
Craddock, George (Bradford, S)
Evans, Albert


Blackburn, F.
Cronin, John
Fernyhough, E.


Blyton, William
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fletcher, Eric


Boardman, H.
Dalyell, Tam
Foley, Maurice


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Darling, George
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)


Bowles, Frank
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Forman, J. C.


Boyden, James
Deer, George
Galpern, Sir Myer


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Delargy, Hugh
Ginsburg, David







Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lubbock, Eric
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Gourlay, Harry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Greenwood, Anthony
McBride, N.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Grey, Charles
MacColl, James
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacDermot, Niall
Ross, William


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McLeavy, Frank
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Short, Edward


Hannan, William
Manuel, Archie
Silkin, John


Harper, Joseph
Mapp, Charles
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hayman, F. H.
Marsh, Richard
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Mason, Roy
Skeffington, Arthur


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mayhew, Christopher
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Hilton, A. V.
Mendelson, J. J.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Holman, Percy
Millan, Bruce
Small, William


Hooson, H. E.
Mitchison, G. R.
Snow, Julian


Houghton, Douglas
Monslow, Walter
Sorensen, R. W.


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Howie, W.
Morris, John (Abervano)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hoy, James H.
Mulley, Frederick
Steele, Thomas


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Neal, Harold
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hunter, A. E.
O'Malley, B. K.
Stonehouse, John


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oram, A. E.
Stones, William


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Owen, Will
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paget, R. T.
Swain, Thomas


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Swingler, Stephen


Janner, Sir Barnett
Parkin, B. T.
Symonds, J. B.


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence
Taverne, D.


Jeger, George
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pentland, Norman
Thornton, Ernest


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Popplewell, Ernest
Thorpe, Jeremy


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Prentice, R. E.
Wainwright, Edwin


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Warbey, William


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Probert, Arthur
Whitlock, William


Kelley, Richard
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Wilkins, W. A.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Randall, Harry
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Lawson, George
Rankin, John
Winterbottom, R. E.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Redhead, E. C.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Woof, Robert


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Reid, William
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Rhodes, H.



Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Dr. Broughton and Mr. McCann.

Amendment proposed: In page 69, line 18, leave out from "authority" to "that" in line 19.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 169.

Division No. 70.]
AYES
[6.11 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Freeth, Denzil


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Galbraith, Hon, T. G. D.


Allason, James
Channon, H. P. C.
Gammans, Lady


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Glover, Sir Douglas


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Balniel, Lord
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Goodhew, Victor


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Cleaver, Leonard
Gower, Raymond


Barter, John
Cole, Norman
Grant-Ferris, R.


Batsford, Brian
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Green, Alan


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Corfield, F. V.
Gurden, Harold


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Coulson, Michael
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Biffen, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Bingham, R. M.
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Curran, Charles
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Currie, G. B. H.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Black, Sir Cyril
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Dance, James
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bourne-Arton, A.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hay, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Braine, Bernard
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hiley, Joseph


Brewis, John
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Duncan, Sir James
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Eden, Sir John
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Holland, Philip


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hollingworth, John


Buck, Antony
Farr, John
Hopkins, Alan


Bullard, Denys
Finlay, Graeme
Hornby, R. P.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Fisher, Nigel
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Burden, F. A.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Campbell, Gordon
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hughes-Young, Michael




Hulbert, Sir Norman
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. s. L. C.
Stainton, Keith


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Mills, Stratton
Stevens, Geoffrey


Iremonger, T. L.
Miscampbell, Norman
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Montgomery, Fergus
Storey, Sir Samuel


James, David
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Morrison, John
Tapsell, Peter


Jennings, J. C.
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Teeling, Sir William


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Temple, John M.


Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Kershaw, Anthony
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Kimball, Marcus
Partridge, E.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Kirk, Peter
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Kitson, Timothy
Peel, John
Turner, Colin


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Percival, Ian
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Leavey, J. A.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pitt, Dame Edith
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lilley, F. J. P.
Prior, J. M. L.
Walker, Peter


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Litchfield, Capt. John
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wall, Patrick


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'd field)
Pym, Francis
Ward, Dame Irene


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Longbottom, Charles
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James
Whitelaw, William


Loveys, Walter H.
Redmayne, Rt, Hon. Martin
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ridsdale, Julian
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Roots, William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


McLaren, Martin
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wise, A. R.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maclean, Sir Fiitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Seymour, Leslie
Woodhouse C. M.


McMaster, Stanley R.
Sharples, Richard
Woollam, John


MacmiHan, Maurice (Halifax)
Shaw, M.
Worsley, Marcus


Maitland, Sir John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)



Mawby, Ray
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Mr. MacArthur and




Mr. R. W. Elliott.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Foley, Maurice
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Forman, J. C.
Lipton, Marcus


Barnett, Guy
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lubbock, Eric


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Ginsburg, David
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bence, Cyril
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McBricle, N.


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Gourlay, Harry
McCann, J.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Greenwood, Anthony
MacColl, James


Benson, Sir George
Grey, Charles
MacDermot, Niall


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McLeavy, Frank


Blyton, William
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Boardman, H.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Manuel, Archie


Bowles, Frank
Hannan William
Mapp, Charles


Boyden, James
Harper, Joseph
Marsh, Richard


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hayman, F. H.
Mason, Roy


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwy Regis)
Mayhew, Christopher


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mendelson, J. J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hilton, A. V.
Millan, Bruce


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Holman, Percy
Mitchison, G. R.


Carmichael, Neil
Hooson, H. E.
Monslow, Walter


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Houghton, Douglas
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Chapman, Donald
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Cliffe, Michael
Howie, w.
Mulley, Frederick


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hoy, James H.
Neal, Harold


Cronin, John
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oliver, G. H.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hunter, A. E.
O'Malley, B. K.


Dalyell, Tam
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Oram, A. E.


Darling, George
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Owen, Will


Deer, George
Janner, Sir Barnett
Paget, R. T.


Delargy, Hugh
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Dempsey, James
Jeger, George
Parkin, B. T.


Dodds, Norman
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pavitt, Laurence


Doig, Peter
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Popplewell, Ernest


Edelman, Maurice
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Prentice, R. E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kelley, Richard
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Probert, Arthur


Evans, Albert
Lawson, George
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Randall, Harry


Fletcher, Eric
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rankin, John







Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Taverne, D.


Reid, William
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Rhodes, H.
Small, William
Thornton, Ernest


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Snow, Julian
Thorpe, Jeremy


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Sorensen, R. W.
Wainwright, Edwin


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Warbey, William


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Spriggs, Leslie
Whitlock, William


Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Steele, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Ross, William
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Stonehouse, John
Winterbottom, R. E.


Short, Edward
Stones, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Silkin, John
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Woof, Robert


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Swain, Thomas
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Swingler, Stephen



Skeffington, Arthur
Symonds, J. B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton.

Clause 69.—(GENERAL EFFECT OF CONTROL ORDER.)

>Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 114, in page 70, line 40, to leave out subsection (3).

>Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): >: It might be convenient to discuss, at the same time, the Government Amendment, Amendment No. 115, in line 44. at the end to insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a right created with the consent in writing of the person or persons who would have power to create that right if the control order were not in force.

Mr. MacColl: I know fairly clearly what I want to do. I only hope that I understand what subsection (3) does and what the effect of eliminating it is. As I understand it, the Clause deals with the powers of the local authority under a control order and its power to deal with property as though it were the legal landlord. The situation is that the local authority may create an interest in the property which can be as near as may be a leasehold, and it may operate in general behaviour as if it is the legal owner.
But that is subject to an exception, which appears in subsection (3), and it is that exception that I want to eliminate. The exception is that
The local authority shall not…create any right in the nature of a lease or licence which is for a fixed term exceeding one month or which is terminable by notice to quit…of more than four weeks.
It seemed to us that the sensible way to overcome the rather awkward problem of security of tenure for the tenant in a property which is subject to a control order is to eliminate this restriction. We should not see any objection to the Minister's Amendment if the subsection were retained, but I hope very much that the subsection will be deleted.
When we discussed this in Committee I took particularly the point where there was a successful appeal—in other words, where there has been an outbreak of hostilities between the tenant and the landlord and the local authority has moved in with all the panoply of the order and taken over possession of the property, dispossessing the landlord and running it as the landlord. That is fine, and the tenant is all right. But if the dispossessed owner appeals, the county court judge has certain powers. If he allows the appeal, he can make it conditional, but we wanted to include among the conditions which would be looked at a condition that he could give the same protection against eviction as can be given in the case of a furnished house by the rent tribunal.
That was discussed in Committee, and I thought that the Government were being reasonably forthcoming and amiable about it. Indeed, I was rather rebuked by the Minister for being slightly timid and not really grasping the problem of the power required because I was limiting it to the appeal and was not dealing with what happened when the order expired with the effluxion of time. I was under the impression that the Government would do something about it. Therefore, I was a little surprised to find that nothing that I could recognise on the Notice Paper appeared to deal with the problem.
It seemed that the sensible thing to do was to get rid of the limit on the power of the local authority. It would then be possible for the local authority, while managing the property as a landlord, to have power, among other things, to give security of tenure by offering a short-term tenancy or leasehold or some interest in the land which went beyond the limit of a month. If it were possible


for that to be done, it seems to me that protection would be obtained.
We may have to meet the argument that a local authority could maliciously and vindictively proceed to saddle the landlord with tenants that he did not want by giving a five-year lease. As we said in the earlier debate, local authorities are supposed to be responsible people with some experience and some public accountability, and when one is balancing, on the one hand, the interest of a man who is so bad a landlord that one has had to dispossess him by the most drastic method since the dissolution of the monastries and, on the other, the interests of a publicly accountable local authority carrying out its duties, it is surely not absurd to suggest that one might give some discretion to the local authority which has to do this distasteful work.
I hope to hear from the hon. Gentleman why he has not—if I am right in thinking that he has not—been able to produce some protection, certainly where there is an appeal. There is a real danger that where the local authority has a control order it is at least playing the hand and can to some extent dictate the terms, and when discussing the revocation of the control order, it can, even if it does not make legal conditions, argue the matter and say that if the landlord is prepared to execute a lease, or do something else, it is prepared to revoke the order.
It is not so easy when the order is finishing at the end of the period, because its maximum time has elapsed, but the worst case is when, suddenly and unexpectedly, there is a complete change in the situation as a result of an appeal being allowed. That, after all, is not the tenant's fault. It may not be the local authority's fault. It may have been done on a technicality. If we want to enable the local authority to discharge its job responsibly, we must give to it powers as wide as we possibly can. I suggest that the elimination of this restricted subsection is one right answer to the problem.

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has probably overlooked the Government Amendment, No. 163, which, I think, meets the main point that he has been argu-

ing—namely, by giving power to the county court, on an appeal against the control order in the first place or an appeal against a refusal by a local authority to revoke the order, to authorise the local authority to create leases or, as the hon. Gentleman put it, "something as near as may be to a lease" up to a period of six months.

Mr. MacColl: I read that Amendment to try to understand it. It seemed to me that it was very rigidly limited to six months. The interests can, as I understand it, be terminated within six months. I was not quite clear about:
terminable by notice to quit (or an equivalent notice) of more than four weeks.
That is the ordinary limit which already applies to a weekly tenancy, and that may go some way to meet the problem, I think, but the Amendment rather limits the, court to the six-month period. My proposal would be to extend the period.

Mr. Corfield: I do not want to quibble with the hon. Member over a small point, but he said something about putting the court in the same position as the furnished accommodation rent tribunal, which normally operates on a three-month basis. We have gone a little further than that.
There are good reasons for not accepting the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which would, by deleting subsection (3), remove any restriction whatever on the length of the leases. Bearing in mind that the immediately dispossessed proprietor is likely to have a very large variety of tail-ends of leases, obviously anything that the local authority can create must be limited to the interest in the property of the dispossessed proprietor, or, indeed, by that time it may be his successor in title.
However it operates, and whoever is the person who is going to take over from the local authority, it is clear that it would be unreasonable to saddle a successor in title, who has probably been perfectly innocent in all this performance, with a relatively long leasehold created by the local authority because of the; powers which it has taken solely as a result of the fault and mis-behaviour of the man from whom it originally took over the property.
It seemed to us, therefore, that the Government Amendment enabling the local authority to go beyond the one month limit, with the consent of the person with the necessary authority, was the right approach. The hon. Member for Widnes rightly said that although, on the face of it, these people will often be not very responsible and perhaps not very co-operative, at that stage the local authority would be in a fairly strong bargaining position. As he put it, the authority would be playing the hand and in most cases it would clearly be in the interests of the dispossessed proprietor in order to regain possession to encourage the local authority to revoke the order.
6.30 p.m.
The local authority would be in a fairly strong position in being able to say, "You can take it over only on the understanding that you create a reasonable leasehold interest, or agree with us to do so, in favour of at least some of your tenants nominated by us". I suggest that the Government's Amendment does most of what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Some limit is necessary, although I do not suggest that local authorities are irresponsible.
The plain fact is that even Ministers' powers are circumscribed and justiciable. Ministers are responsible to Parliament and local authorities are not. If the hon. Gentleman ever comes to hold my office, he will find it a certain embarrassment, because one is called the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and is then expected to be responsible for many things for which one is not. There is all the more reason for local authority powers being carefully circumscribed.
I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed and that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that our proposals go most of the way to meet what he submits to be the important point, which is that which arises on appeal.

Mr. M. Stewart: I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that one of the important points to which the Amendment applies is when an order is revoked on appeal. The Government Amendment goes some way to protecting the tenant in that case, although I should have preferred a longer period of tenure.

However, there are two other circumstances in which a control order can come to an end. It can come to an end if the local authority revokes it on its own initiative. The hon. Gentleman argued that, with the help of the Government Amendment, the local authority could approach the landlord and say, "We will revoke it if you agree to what we regard as a satisfactory security of tenure". However, there remains the circumstance when a control order comes to an end at the end of five years.
The problem, as the Government are now only too well aware, of when there is a fixed term set for anything is that the fixed term may end in circumstances in which one does not feel at all happy about it. The local authority may find, perhaps after having had great difficulty in managing the property, that the period of five years has come to an end and that the person to whom the property is to pass is not in any way a better citizen than he was at the beginning of the process—he may be the same person, although not necessarily, and he may still be an exceedingly objectionable landlord.
What our Amendment would do and what none of the Government Amendments would do is enable the local authority in these circumstances to protect the tenant at the time by creating for him a reasonable length of leasehold. If the Government will accept that principle, we will be willing to withdraw the Amendment if they are prepared to put through an Amendment in another place giving the tenant in those circumstances at least some security of tenure.
I follow the Parliamentary Secretary's argument that our Amendment would give the authority power to create a lease for 20 years and I would be willing to yield that and say that it should be able to create it for only a certain maximum period. However, when the five years are up, and the house is to pass back to the formerly dispossessed proprietor, there ought to be powers to protect the tenant. There is none in the Bill, nor in any of the Government Amendments. Unless the Government can agree to accept the principle of our Amendment, we must press it.

Mr. Norman Cole: I can find nothing in Clause 68


or anywhere else which prohibits a local authority from making a new order on the expiry of the five years. One of the circumstances for the imposition of a control order is that it is necessary to protect the safety, welfare or health of persons within the house; if they were sufficiently deleterious, the circumstances would justify the making of an order.

Mr. MacColl: I do not know whether the hon. Member was in the Chamber during our last debate, which took place with great vigour on both sides on precisely that point. Unless there were physical conditions in the dwelling which justified the making of the control order, nothing could be done. We are arguing for getting rid of those words. If we had done so, there would be very much in what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Cole: I was present for much of that debate. The hon. Gentleman has rushed in, with the best intentions, where angels fear to tread, because living conditions are not only physical. Any judge in the High Court or in a county court could rule that psychological conditions, about which the hon. Gentleman expatiated so well, were part of the safety, welfare or health of the person in the house. I am certain that if the conditions at the end of five years were that bad, then, if the Bill means anything, there would not be an automatic return to the undesirable landlord merely because of the expiration of five years.

Mr. M. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman looks closely at Clause 68, he will see that not only the requirement about living conditions has to be satisfied. It has also to be a house on which there is a 1961 order which, by definition, the house we are now discussing does not have, or the condition of the house has to be such as to call for the making of such an order. It would not be in that condition after five years of management by a local authority, so Clause 68 is not the answer.

Mr. Cole: The hon. Gentleman rescued himself just in time, because the house does not have to have a 1961 order to justify this procedure. I agree that after five years of local authority management it ought not to be in that condition. No doubt this will have to

be decided in the courts in due course, but I am certain which way the decision will go.
The Government Amendment removes any possibility of an appeal to the county court being turned down on technical grounds. If it is a matter of technical accuracy, then, as with compulsory purchase orders, the application for the control order can be made again the next day, and if it is a matter of the technical accuracy of the description, then we are arguing about something which ought not to have come before the court, because if the court decides that a control order should not be made the chances are that the house ought not to have been designated in the first place.
I am with the hon. Member entirely in believing that the local authority would be in a bargaining position. If it is not satisfied about the health, safety and welfare on psychological grounds it ought not to return the house to the present landlord. Amendment No. 163 refers to six months, but this might go on for two or three years. If the local authority thought the landlord was sufficiently in need of discipline, it might make the power operative for three or four years. The hon. Member has gone too far in minimising the potentialities of Amendment No. 115.
If at the expiration of the five years, or any given time, the local authority wished to pass the house back to the landlord and if it was satisfied that all conditions justified that course, I am not sure that it would be in the interests of the local authority to make a longer lease. It might find that an embarrassment. The local authority must be satisfied that the premises are put into a proper state. I do not know what was in the mind of the parliamentary draftsman, but I think subsection (3) has been included as an expression of vision of the house going back in a proper state of repair and it would be right to resume the status quo between landlord and tenant.
The Government have met the difficulty by Amendment No. 115. By leaving out subsection (3) we would leave the local authority with no guidance, but with the addition of Amendment No. 115 the local authority is given very wide powers. I think that that


Amendment contains much strength and should meet the case. I am fully prepared to vote for it. For a local authority which has completed the job, subsection (3) would be a useful guide. It is obviously meant for operation at the end of the period of control because during that period the control would be from month to month and would not affect the landlord.
I have every sympathy with the tenants in these matters. In some ways I go further than hon. Members opposite. I include under safety, welfare and health almost any kind of condition in which a person might find himself as a result of duress by anyone else. I think this would meet the feelings of all decent men and women This provision meets the case and gives the local authority satisfactory powers.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Corfield: I must agree with hon. Members opposite that it is not practicable to look towards an immediate renewal of the control order at the end of five years even if one could still say that the condition of the property was such that it should be returned to a landlord, though not necessarily the same landlord.

Mr. Cole: Of course, we all hope that the local authorities could put the property into a proper state in under five years, but, if it were not amenable to treatment in that time what would my hon. Friend do?

Mr. Corfield: I should think in that case the house should want blowing up.
One has to bear in mind that if we have narrowed the issue to what happens at the end of five years—and I think we have because the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) agreed that in any shorter period the local authority would be in a fairly strong bargaining position—we have to realise that it would be at least five years and a quarter, perhaps five years and a half, before any of these cases could arise. It will obviously be two or three months from now, probably six months, before any large number of orders are made. As the hon. Member himself said in Committee, by that time it is likely that some other legislation will have overtaken the problem.
The position, whatever it may be, will be quite different from what it is today. We are worrying ourselves unduly if we think that housing legislation of this sort dealing with these sort of conditions will not need renewing from time to time, well under five years. I am not prepared to give anything in the form of an undertaking. I shall certainly consider what has been said so long as it is not thought that I am giving an undertaking to introduce an Amendment in another place, as the hon. Member suggested.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 151.

Division No. 71.]
AYES
[6.48 p.m.


Allason, James
Burden, F. A.
Duncan, Sir James


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Campbell, Gordon
Duthie, Sir William (Banff)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Eden, Sir John


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Cary, Sir Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Balniel, Lord
Channon, H. P. G.
Elliott, R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Chichester-Clark, R.
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Barlow, Sir John
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Farr, John


Barter, John
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Finlay, Graeme


Batsford, Brian
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Fisher, Nigel


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Cleaver, Leonard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Cole, Norman
Freeth, Denzil


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Biffen, John
Corfield, F. V.
Gammans, Lady


Bingham, R. M.
Coulson, Michael
Glover, Sir Douglas


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gower, Raymond


Black, Sir Cyril
Crawley, Aidan
Grant-Ferris, R.


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Green, Alan


Bourne-Arton, A.
Curran, Charles
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Braine, Bernard
Currie, G. B. H.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Brewis, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Dance, James
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Buck, Antony
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bullard, Denys
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hay, John


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Drayson, G. B.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel




Hilley, Joseph
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Shepherd, William


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswlck)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maitland, Sir John
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Holland, Philip
Marten, Neil
Stainton, Keith


Hollingworth, John
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Mawby, Ray
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Hughes-Young, Michael
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Mills, Stratton
Tapsell, Peter


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Iremonger, T. L.
Montgomery, Fergus
Teeling, Sir William


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Temple, John M.


James, David
Morrison, John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwioh)
Neave, Airey
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Jennings, J. C.
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Turner, Colin


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Partridge, E.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Kershaw, Anthony
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kimball, Marcus
Percival, Ian
Walker, Peter


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Leavey, J. A.
Pitt, Dame Edith
Whitelaw, William

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Lilley, F. J. P.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Pym, Francis
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Loveys, Walter H.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Wise, A. R.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Roots, William
Woodhouse, C. M.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Worsley, Marcus


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Russell, Sir Ronald
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


MacArthur, Ian
Seymour, Leslie



McLaren, Martin
Sharples, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Shaw, M.
Mr. Peel and Mr. Ian Fraser.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Monslow, Walter


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Bence, Cyril
Hannan, William
Mulley, Frederick


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Harper, Joseph
Neal, Harold


Benson, Sir George
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Oliver, G. H.


Blackburn, F.
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
O'Malley, B. K.


Blyton, William
Hilton, A. V.
Oram, A. E.


Boardman, H.
Holman, Percy
Oswald, Thomas


Bowles, Frank
Hooson, H. E.
Owen, Will


Boyden, James
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Paget, R. T.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howie, W.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parkin, B. T.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hunter, A. E.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pentland, Norman


Carmichael, Neil
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Popplewell, Ernest


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Janner, Sir Barnett
Prentice, R. E.


Chapman, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cliffe, Michael
Jeger, George
Probert, Arthur


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Cronin, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Randall, Harry


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Rankin, John


Dalyell, Tam
Jonas, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Darling, George
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rhodes, H.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Deer, George
Lawson, George
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Delargy, Hugh
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dempsey, James
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Doig, Peter
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Ross, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Edward


Edelman, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McBride, N.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
McCann, J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Evans, Albert
MacColl, James
Skeffington, Arthur

Fernyhough, E.
MacDermot, Niall
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Fitch, Alan
McLeavy, Frank
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Fletcher, Eric
MacPherson, Malcolm
Small, William


Forman, J. C.
Manuel, Archie
Snow, Julian


Ginsburg, David
Mapp, Charles
Sorensen, R. W.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mason, Roy
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Gourlay, Harry
Mayhew, Christopher
Spriggs, Leslie


Greenwood, Anthony
Mendelson, J. J.
Steele, Thomas


Grey, Charles
Millan, Bruce








Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Stonehouse, John
Thornton, Ernest
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Stones, William
Wainwright, Edwin
Woof, Robert


Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Warbey, William
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Swain, Thomas
Whitlock, William



Swingler, Stephen
Wilkins, W. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Symonds, J. B.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton.


Taverne, D.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Amendment made: In page 70, line 44, at end insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a right created with the consent in writing of the person or persons who would have power to create that right if the control order were not in force.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I beg to move Amendment No. 116, in page 71, to leave out lines 23 to 26.
It would be convenient to the House if Amendment No. 118—in page 72, line 43, to leave out from "(2)" to "for" in line 1 on page 73—which is associated with it, were taken with this Amendment. Both are drafting and consequential upon an Amendment made in Committee whereby the definition for Scotland of the term "licence" was placed in Clause 87.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 70.—(EFFECT OF CONTROL ORDER ON PERSONS OCCUPYING HOUSE.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 117, in page 71, line 46, to leave out from "applies" to the end of line 5 on page 72.
Amendment No. 196 conveniently goes with this Amendment—that is, in page 128, line 24, to leave out subparagraph (3).
The first Amendment deletes paragraph (b) of Clause 70(2) which contains the provision that a local authority upon taking possession inherits the obligations of the dispossessed proprietor. As my right hon. Friend pointed out in Committee, it was not the intention that the authority should be at risk of inheriting, for example, liabilities for breach of covenant. What we have in mind is that the authority should inherit the advantages, should it wish to use them, of, for instance, a notice to quit given by the dispossessed proprietor to the tenant at the time of the control order. The hon. Member for Glagow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) pointed out in Committee that the words "or other thing done" might well have very much wider meaning and might

cover the possibility of liability for a breach of covenant by the former proprietor.
On examination, we think that he might well be right and that at any rate the position should be made clear. We have therefore decided that the best approach is to delete the paragraph altogether, but I am advised that the opening words of subsection (2) make it clear that the local authority by the ordinary process of law will inherit the ordinary obligations with respect to any notices given or any covenants entered into for the benefit of the tenant.
7.0 p.m.
The second Amendment is, so to speak, the other leg of these provisions, namely the provisions in Schedule 4 which govern what hapepns when the local authority hands property back either to the former proprietor or to his successor in title, where clearly the same general principle should apply, and the Amendment puts that part of the Bill in the same position as the Amendment to Clause 70.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 72, line 43, leave out from "(2)" to "for" in line 1 on page 73.—[Mr. Corfield]

Clause 73.—(PERIODICAL PAYMENTS TO DISPOSSESSED PROPRIETOR.)

Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to move, in page 75, line 25, leave out "either party" and insert "any of such persons".
This is a drafting Amendment designed to meet a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). I am glad to think that the wording of the Bill has been improved in this respect as a result of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 74.—(SCHEME LISTING WORKS INVOLVING CAPITAL EXPENDITURE.)

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 120, in page 75, line 43, to leave out paragraph (a)

Mr. Speaker: I respectfully suggest to the House that we might discuss with this Amendment the following Amendments:

Amendment No. 122, in page 76, line 10, leave out paragraph (c).

Amendment No. 123, in page 76, line 23, leave out subsection (4).

Government Amendment No. 127, in page 76, line 37, which I shall call for separate Division if required.

Amendment No. 128, in page 77, line 27, leave out "as settled by the scheme".

Amendment No. 129, in page 77, line 31, at end insert:
(2A) In this Part of this Act references to surpluses on revenue account are references to the balances from time to time accruing to the local authority out of the net amount of the rent and other payments received by the local authority from persons occupying the house after deducting—

(a) compensation payable by the local authority under section 73 and section 74 of this Act, and
(b) all expenditure, other than expenditure of which particulars have been given under subsection (2) of section 74 of this Act, incurred by the local authority in respect of the house while the control order is in force, together with the appropriate establishment charges.

Amendment No. 130, in page 78, line 11, leave out "as settled by the scheme".

Amendmen No. 135, in page 78, line 28, leave out from "varied" to "on".

Amendment No. 148, in page 82, line 18, leave out paragraph (d).

Amendment No. 165, in page 89, line 30, leave out "as settled by the scheme".

And Amendment No. 166, in page 89, line 31, leave out "74(4)" and insert "76(2A)".

Mr. Milian: That will be convenient, Mr. Speaker.
Amendment No. 120, and the other Amendments which you mentioned, Mr. Speaker, are a group of Amendments dealing with the financial relationships between a local authority which has imposed a control order on a dwelling and the former proprietors or the persons who have in one way or another a financial interest in the house. This is a slightly complicated subject. As there are several Amendments, perhaps I

should start by explaining briefly what the Bill does at present, what we on this side of the House object to, and what we are trying to achieve by the various Amendments.
First, from the financial point of view it is provided that, when a control order is imposed on a house, certain compensation will be paid to the former proprietor under Clause 73, where one-half of the gross value is payable, and in the case of furnished lettings under Clause 77, where a certain additional payment is made. That is only the start of the story. It is the most simple part of the Bill. It is further provided that, in regulating the financial arrangements between the local authority and a dispossessed proprietor, a local authority shall be under an obligation under Clause 74 to prepare a scheme for the house.
The scheme does a number of things It lays down the capital works which the local authority thinks ought to be executed on the house and its proposals for executing them. The scheme also makes an estimate of what the revenue account, as distinct from the capital account, of the house will be under the local authority's administration of the property. In that revenue account notice is taken of the rent and any other receipts which the local authority will receive in respect of the property, and, on the other hand, the compensation which will be payable by the local authority wider Clauses 73 and 77, and also all kinds of expenditure which the local authority may have in repairing or in generally managing the property. This scheme is an estimate of what will happen. This is something which is drawn up at the start of the control order. It is simply the local authority's estimate of what the financial outcome of its managing the property will be.
There is provision in the Bill not only for an appeal against the control order itself—the whole principle of placing a control order on the property—but also for an appeal against the scheme. There is a double appeal right at the beginning of the local authority's management of the property. Further, it is provided under Clause 75 that at any time while the local authority is actually managing the property the dispossessed proprietor shall have an appeal to the court to have the surpluses on the revenue account as


estimated by the scheme at the beginning of the local authority's management varied, obviously in favour of the dispossessed proprietor. There are three appeals in a sense—an appeal against the control order itself, an appeal against the original scheme, and subsequently an appeal against the actual working out of the scheme if the working out of the scheme is disadvantageous to the dispossessed proprietor.
All this is obviously important from the point of view of the financial settlement between the local authority and the dispossessed proprietor, and is particularly important with regard to the recovery of the capital expenditure, because it is provided that the capital expenditure shall be recovered from the surpluses as estimated by the scheme—not the actual surpluses that the local authority in the event may have in managing the house from a revenue point of view, but the surpluses as settled by the scheme. That is provided for in Clause 76. That Clause also provides that, if at the end of the control order the local authority has not managed to recover its capital expenditure from the surpluses as settled by the scheme, it will be possible for the local authority to put a charge against the property.
It is only necessary to describe the arrangements under the Bill at present to prove that they are extremely complicated. I doubt very much whether anyone who served on the Standing Committee will have wholly followed what I have just said in my brief description of what the Bill provides. It is an extremely complicated operation and some of us in Committee felt that it was unnecessarily complicated. We still feel that it is unnecessarily complicated.
In Committee, I proposed that the whole idea of having a scheme for the property should be abolished and that the local authority, having taken over the property, should be allowed to manage it, to spend money on repairs or on capital expenditure as it thinks fit, and at the end of the day to have a financial settlement with the dispossessed proprietor. I proposed also that, if that arrangement were followed, obviously there would have to be some

kind of appeal on the part of the dispossessed proprietor, but again that could very well be an appeal which could take place at the end of the control order if the dispossessed proprietor was dissatisfied either with the sum of money paid over to him or with the balance of capital expenditure remaining as a charge against the property. I still believe that that would be the easiest and most acceptable way of providing for the financial arrangements under control orders. However, the Minister said in Committee that that way would not be acceptable and that there was some necessity to get something financially settled at the beginning of the control order.
I point this out to show that this series of Amendments provides a compromise between the Minister's view and ours, although the Bill will be altered by Amendments which we will discuss later. As I say, that would be the simpler method of proceeding and I still believe it would have achieved the Minister's purpose, particularly since it received so much support in Committee. These Amendments are intended to maintain the idea of having a scheme for managing the property, but to restrict that substantially by providing that only the capital expenditure should be included in the scheme. In other words, there would still be an obligation on the local authority to say at the beginning of the control order what kind of capital expenditure it was intended to execute on the house which had been taken over. Thus there would still be an opportunity at that stage for the dispossessed proprietor to appeal against the capital expenditure.
If one really needs safeguards for the dispossessed proprietor, he should be in the position of saying that no major works should be carried out on the property if he had not been informed of them at the beginning of the control order. Beyond that, the local authority would work on the expenditure and receipts on the property from the revenue point of view. In other words, there would be no estimate at the beginning of the control order of what the revenue account concerning the property was going to be. There would simply be an obligation, which is already in the Bill, on the part of the local


authority to keep proper accounts of the property and draw up a profit and loss account. There is already an obligation in Clause 85 for the local authority to keep proper accounts. There is also the safeguard that the dispossessed proprietor is able to look at those accounts as the control order proceeds.
That is what would happen on the revenue side of the account. All the complicated arrangements for dealing with the revenue side of the property would be completely eliminated by this series of Amendments. The Minister is likely to argue that if one does this the local authority could be extravagant in its management of the property, might disregard the proper revenue earning capacity of the property and, in general, could do what it liked with the property because there would be no financial disincentive for it to do otherwise. That is not so, because under the Amendments—and I will explain them individually later—if there were a deficit on the revenue account at the end of the control order, that would be irrecoverable. There is no provision for a deficit to be otherwise and the local authority would not be extravagant in its management of the property for that reason.
In any case, one would expect that in normal circumstances there would not be a deficit at the end of the control period, taking account of the payment made to the dispossessed proprietor of half the gross value under Clause 73. Indeed, one would expect that the account would be in balance. If there were a deficit the local authority would bear that, as it will under the Bill as drafted. On the other hand, if there were a surplus, that would be used to pay off the capital expenditure. It would not be appropriated by the local authority. I suggest, therefore, that far from being unfair to the dispossessed proprietor, the Amendments lean over backwards to be fair to him, although I would have preferred a system which was not this fair to him.

Mr. Cole: What would happen in the event of there being a surplus?

Mr. Millan: There could not, by definition, be a surplus on the capital side. I suppose that it is only in terms of the revenue account that one could talk about a surplus.

Mr. Cole: If there were a surplus on the capital side and it was transferred to the capital account, then in that case the dispossessed proprietor would not lose?

Mr. Millan: What is the hon. Member's question?

Mr. Cole: The hon. Member has said that there is no question of there being any surplus on the revenue side or that, therefore, it would be transferred to the capital account in regard to a scheme. I agree, by definition, that that is so, but what is the purpose of transferring it to the other side of the account?

Mr. Millan: I do not follow the point of the hon. Member's intervention. I am saying hat if there were a surplus on the revenue account, that would go towards paying off the capital expenditure. What would happen in the event of there being no capital expenditure or if it were already paid off, no doubt the surplus would go to the local authority; but considering that the deficit would have been borne by the local authority, I should have thought that that would be reasonably fair.
7.15 p.m.
I find no element of penalty in all this. Even if there were I would not necessarily think it a bad thing. We are, after all, sealing with the most unscrupulous kind of landlord; and had the Minister been willing to accept the idea of having a penalty in the financial arrangements I would have been only too delight to have tabled Amendments to that effect. Instead, we are now considering how to get a reasonable compromise between the exact terms of the Bill, which are far too unfair to the local authority, and the views of my hon. hon. Friends and I.

Mr. Cole: Since the hon. Member has referred to penalties, I might make it clear that in referring to the local authority and surpluses I merely wanted to mention the question of surpluses so that the matter could be cleared up and not left hanging in mid-air, as it were.

Mr. Millan: It is unlikely that there would be a surplus because there would be capital expenditure to be paid for in respect of almost all of these properties. As I say, even if these Amendments did impose a penalty on the dispossessed landlord—although I do not believe that


they do—I would not necessarily think that there was anything wrong in that.
It might be convenient to hon. Members if I explain the purpose of each Amendment. Amendment No. 120 is designed to eliminate from the scheme to be produced by the local authority an estimate of the cost of carrying out the capital expenditure works. This Amendment is somewhat separate from the rest and could stand or fall by itself. It is simply an attempt to reduce the complications that exist in the Bill as drafted.
Amendment No. 122 would eliminate the account that has to be drawn up of what the estimated surplus on revenue account will be. This Amendment is really the basic one in the group Amendment No. 123 is consequential on it.
Amendment No. 127 would eliminate altogether the appeal by the dispossessed proprietor against the revenue account as settled by the scheme because, once one goes away from the idea of having the revenue account as settled by the scheme to that of actual revenue account, Clause 75 is completely unnecessary—and so, incidentally, are the Amendments that the Minister has put down subsequently to take the place of Clause 75.
Amendment No. 128 is consequential in the sense that it provides for that recovery of capital expenditure shall be from the actual surpluses on revenue account as distinct from the surpluses estimated on revenue account as the Bill is now drafted. Amendment No. 129 simply gives a definition of surpluses of revenue account in almost exactly the same words as appear in Clause 74; it simply shifts a bit of Clause 74 into Clause 76.
Amendments Nos. 130 and 135 are consequential, and so is Amendment 148, because if the scheme does not provide for an estimate of surpluses on revenue account, one of the grounds of appeal against the scheme under Clause 79 falls out; paragraph (b) is eliminated. Amendment No. 165 is consequential, and Amendment No. 166 is a drafting Amendment that becomes necessary if the other Amendments are accepted.
I hope that I have reasonably clearly explained the purpose of the Amend-

ments, and the Amendments themselves. I assume for the moment that the Amendments are drafted satisfactorily, but I should not be surprised to be told that there was a defect in one or other of them—they deal with a rather complicated subject.
In anticipation of what the Minister will say, perhaps I might refer to the Government's Amendments to Clause 75, and the addition to Clause 79. In effect, the Government are eliminating Clause 75 altogether and then, by Amendments Nos. 149 and 150, are putting similar but rather extended provisions in another part of the Bill. The effect of the Government's Amendments is that, still working on the estimated surplus on revenue account, it will be possible not only for the dispossessed proprietor to appeal to the court for variation, but also for the local authority to have the surplus on revenue account as settled by the scheme varied in the event of the actual surpluses turning out to be rather different from the estimate at the beginning of the control order.
We can deal with this when the Government Amendments are moved, but I say now that if Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 are accepted, and if the local authorities and the dispossessed proprietors keep a running check on the actual revenue account as compared with the revenue accounts as originally estimated, one will get into the rather absurd position that the financial arrangements between the dispossessed proprietor, on the one hand, and the local authority, on the other, will be settled, in this very roundabout way, on the basis of the actual surpluses and deficits on revenue account as distinct from the estimated surpluses and deficits, because as soon as the surplus actually brought out under the local authority's management becomes higher than the surpluses as estimated originally the dispossessed proprietor will be able to appeal for a variation to increase. As soon as the surplus is less than that originally brought out by the scheme, the local authority will be able to appeal to the court for a variation to bring it nearer the actual.
I seriously suggest to the Minister that this is a completely absurd way of


doing things, and is unnecessarily complicated. The Government would do much better to look either at the suggestion I originally made in Committee, or at this series of Amendments. It is necessary to get a reasonable balance of fairness between the local authority and the dispossessed proprietor, but it is also necessary to get this kind of control-order administration working as effectively and simply as possible. I could hardly devise a scheme more complicated than the Government s scheme, even as it will be if their Amendments are accepted. One would think that someone had really tried to make the thing as complicated as possible.
If anything will act as a disincentive to local authorities putting on these control orders it will be these extremely complicated financial arrangements, with the right of the dispossessed proprietor to appeal against the control order, to appeal against the scheme, and to appeal, from time to time during the operation of the control order, against the financial results brought out by the scheme. It is all quite absurd, and completely unnecessary even from the point of view of protecting the interests of the dispossessed proprietor, so I hope that the Government will look seriously at this series of Amendments.

Sir K. Joseph: I must begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) on what I thought a masterly performance. It only upset me a little that he also managed to include my answers—or some of them, at any rate. As he said in his closing words, this will be an argument on balance. I cannot produce the Government bell, book and candle and say that the hon. Member s scheme is absolutely absurd and that ours is perfect; this is an argument on where the balance of advantage lies.
As I see that the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) is momentarily—and I know that it is only momentarily—out of his place, perhaps I can whisper to hon. Members—because this is an argument that always infuriates the hon. Gentleman—that this scheme was put to the local authority associations early in the proceedings, and they have not objected to it. This

is not a decisive argument one way or the other. The Government often have to impose ideas which local authorities do not like; they cannot, therefore, shelter behind some degree of local authority approval when the local authorities show no objection.
I thought that I should say that early on, as the hon. Member for Craigton stigmatised the Government's proposals as being bound to act as a serious disincentive. This is not as it has so far appeared to the local authority associations, but I do not lean too heavily on that.
I must, for the completeness of my argument, put again some of the things the hon. Gentleman has said. He seeks, as he rightly said, to alter the basis of recovery of capital expenditure from a scheme of fixed surplus to the mere chance of what surplus if any emerges on current revenue account.
7.30 p.m.
I ought to remind the House of the sequence of events. The local authority is under an obligation to produce a capital scheme. Nobody questions that. It is obviously right that the interests, including the dispossessed proprietor of the property, should know what is proposed because ultimately, one way or another, they have to pay for it. Under the Government scheme the local authority requires to produce a revenue and expenditure estimate in which it includes, or the one hand, likely income from the property and, on the other hand, compensation payable to the dispossessed proprietor, the rates, and similar expenditure, which must be met, reasonable provision for maintenance, and any other apt and relevant provision which it thinks fit to make within Clause 74 (3,c). The balance of the revenue and expenditure that it proposes will provide the settled surplus, to which I have referred. It is the sum represented by the settled surplus that will be treated as writing down the capital debt on regular basis. Any remaining capital debt at the end of the control order will be a charge on the property.
I hope that the House appreciates the benefits of this. First, the local authority is very unlikely to suffer any damage. It will be able realistically to assess its income and its likely expenditure. Under


Amendments to be moved later by the Government, it will be able to revise these, if it wishes, during the passing of the control order. Secondly, the local authority will know fairly accurately how it will recover the money that it will spend on its capital scheme. Thirdly, there will be a fair chance by this procedure proposed by the Government that there will be no appeal against the settled surplus.
If the dispossessed proprietor and any other person interested in the property are satisfied that there is a sensible estimate of revenue and expenditure, they will be the less inclined to challenge the whole capital scheme, since they will see that the settled surplus will during the currency year of the control order write off at least what is fair of the capital expenditure necessary, leaving only what remains fair as a charge on the property, if any remains to be paid. All these seem sensible things, and we must remember that in imposing on the property and on the property owners the drastic weapon of a control order it seems right that the local authority should have some framework of financial discipline to which it subjects itself.
I realise that we are asking the local authority to do what the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) correctly described on Second Reading as scavenging, but nevertheless these are strong powers and it does seem right to ask the local authority to make a forward estimate. I agree at once that the hon. Member for Craigton has gone as far as he reasonably can to meet the Government's attitude here. He has not maintained the original drastic Amendments which he put forward in Committee, but if we accept the Amendments the local authority is no longer under any discipline. The local authority does not have to estimate its revenue or its running expenditure. It is utterly at large on both. As the hon. Member says, no local authority of course will run a current deficit, because it will not recover it even under the hon. Member's scheme, but it could still minimise its expenditure or minimise its revenue, or at least balance the two on a low level of rent, at a lower level than justified, so as to eliminate or reduce any such surplus, and leave the whole of the money, rightly spent on the

property to be a charge on the property after the control order.
This might or might not be a penalty on the dispossessed proprietor. His interest might lapse when the control order lapses. It might be entirely a penalty on third parties who have no moral responsibility whatsoever. I therefore believe that on every ground the hon. Member's group of Amendments is inadequate as a financial discipline and safeguard for the interest not only of the dispossessed proprietor but of the other interests concerned.
The Government, as the hon. Member rightly said, have accepted at a later stage some of the proposals put forward by him to give the local authority the right to seek a reduction in the settled surplus. We shall be discussing that later. I must say also that the hon. Member's attempt to give the dispossessed proprietor and other interests in the property a retrospective right of challenge is unrealistic. He says, "Let the dispossessed proprietor and other interests at the end of the control order challenge the financial conduct of the local authority. Let them question at that stage what the revenue should have been."

Mr. Millan: I said that in Standing Committee, but that does not apply to this group of Amendments. It was to meet the Minister's objection that these Amendments were drawn in a different way.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. That was a mistake of mine. But if the hon. Member thinks that by avoiding any settled scheme of revenue and expenditure the local authority can avoid being harassed during the control order he is wrong. If the Amendments were accepted and if the local authority charged rents which nobody could reasonably challenge as being too low, or even if it did not, there might be a considerable amount of nagging by the dispossesssed proprietor. Admittedly that nagging would be administrative and by correspondence and visits and could have no legal status, but the local authority would be harassed, whereas by the settled scheme, to which it is true there is a right of appeal, there is a fair chance of the control order passing with a minimum


of administrative difficulty on the financial side.
These are not and cannot be conclusive arguments. I cannot say infallibly that the hon. Member's alternative is absolutely bad and ours is absolutely right, but I believe that on balance the Government's proposals, which enable the local authority, the dispossessed proprietor and other interests in the property to know their position from the beginning, is far more satisfactory for all concerned, including the local authorities, than the very adventitious and chancy scheme proposed by the hon. Member.
Finally, Amendment No. 127, which is included in this group, is of course a Government Amendment to which hon. Members opposite have added their names. The Government therefore will want to accept that, because it forms part of their later Amendments. I will not go so far as to hope that the hon. Member's Amendments will not be pursued, but I hope that I have explained why the Government advise the House not to accept them.

Mr. Willis: It is a great pity that the Minister will not accept my hon. Friend's Amendments. During our debates on the Bill he has talked about the strong powers that the Government have given to local authorities to enable them to introduce a control order in respect of the typo of property that we are discussing. But all the time at the back of my mind is the thought that we are dealing with a peculiar set of people. We seem to lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with the worst landlords in the country. We are dealing with people who are letting property in such an unsuitable state that the living conditions are a danger to the safety, health and welfare of the people. We are dealing with a thoroughly undesirable set of people who are exploiting the housing shortage in order to impose quite intolerable conditions on ordinary folk.
However, we never hear of this. The right hon. Gentleman keeps harping on the enormous powers that we are giving to local authorities. Never does he show us the other side of the coin. As I said in Committee, if somebody steals an apple he is sent to gaol. If somebody sells rotten fruit he is suitably punished.

But the kind of fellow whom we are discussing tonight is not punished to any considerable extent. Not only are we dealing with the most undesirable type of landlord, but, whilst the control order is in operation, we compensate him by paying him half the gross annual value of the property. He does not have to do a thing. He does not have to manage the property. He does nothing, yet he receives half the gross annual value of the property.
It is pathetic to listen to the reasons given by hon. Members opposite, all because of this doctrinaire approach to private property, the golden calf of private property to which hon. Members opposite bow down whenever an Amendment is moved by the Opposition. One would think that we were dealing with a set of people whom we were anxious to help. I should think that a great number of them ought to be in gaol instead of being assisted and compensated.
The Minister says, "This is really a question of balance of advantage". Very well, let us approach it from that point of view. Towards whose side should we lean so as to be fair? When we talk in terms of balance of advantage we cannot get an exact balance We lean over to one side or the other But my complaint against the Government is that they lean over towards the owner of his disreputable and unfit property which is a danger to people's safety, welfare and health. The Government do not lean over towards the local authorities. Instead, the local authorities can be harassed. The Bill enables them to be harassed by the owners. The owners can appeal against the order, the scheme and the way in which it is carried out.
I know the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the poor person in the background who does not know what is happening to the property, but this does not cut a great deal of ice with the people who have to endure these conditions. The right hon. Gentleman is leaning over backwards to make it possible for these landlords to harass local authorities in an unbelievable manner.
My hon. Friend's proposals in Committee were perfectly reasonable. Here is an intolerable situation, mainly found in London, although to a small extent in other places as well. We ought to be


anxious to clear it up as soon as possible. We ought to encourage the local authorities, instead of putting all sorts of difficulties in their way. They cannot even introduce the order without somebody appealing against it. Then they have to draw up this most elaborate scheme under Clause 74(3), and once again the owner can appeal against it. I should have thought when the local authorities were taking over the property and paying the owner compensation of half the gross annual value each year, they ought to be allowed to get on with the job of making the property fit to live in and the conditions of the tenants reasonably happy, instead of having all sorts of hindrances put in their way.
7.45 p.m.
But that is what we do in the sacred interest of not being unfair to the Rachmans. We must not be unreasonable towards those people. We must not upset them. That attitude seems to me to be quite wrong. My hon. Friend's Amendment would remove those injustices. As I say, the proposals that he made in Committee were reasonable, namely, that there should be an opportunity for the owner to appeal in the first place, after which the local authority should be able to get on with the job and present its accounts at the end of the day. That is a way of encouraging the local authority to do the job as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friend offers this compromise, though it does not give to local authorities the freedom that I think they deserve—because I trust the local authorities. During the next two or three weeks hon. Members opposite will be making speeches in Scotland, in Edinburgh, Glasgow and all over the place, saying how they trust the local authorities and how we must strengthen local democracy. But they do not really trust the local authorities. They must crib, cabin and confine the local authorities, but not the Rachmans.
The present series of Amendments present something in the nature of a compromise. They do not enable the local authority to issue a complete control order and then to get on with the job. There are certain provisions whereby the owner can appeal and there are certain financial arrangements which

are not so free as those which were suggested in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman says that if we accept this proposal the local authority would not know where it stood. I know the Edinburgh city treasurer very well and I cannot see him drawing up a scheme to put property into good order without knowing what the capital cost would be, what would be the income from the property, how it should be let and what the surplus would be. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that city treasurers in the larger towns do not know what they are doing, he ought to think again.

Mr. Manuel: Or in any town.

Mr. Willis: It is the larger towns with which we are concerned at the moment. My experience is that the city treasurers in places like Edinburgh are among the most competent people one would wish to meet. The Edinburgh city treasurer does not administer the affairs of Edinburgh without knowing what he is doing. The right hon. Gentleman says that we must make the local authorities draw up these schemes. This is the sort of thing they will do, but they should be enabled to do it without let or hindrance and also in the manner which they think is best suited for the job they have to tackle.
Even if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is a matter of judging the balance of advantage, I cannot see why he should not lean over a little more towards the local authorities and trust them, recognising that they are quite competent to deal with this sort of thing. Whitehall does not know best, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to think. He should let the local authorities get on with the job.

Mr. Manuel: My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is doing a reasonable job, in spite of the unreasonable approach by the Minister. At the same time, I think my hon. Friend is being very easy on the Government Front Bench and on the people who own this type of property. Is he aware that the local authority has to pay half the gross annual value and to keep a day-to-day balance? Is he not also aware that under this Clause compensation is considered as accruing from day to day, and that if there is a review and the


gross value is increased from what it was when the control order was applied, the owner gets half of the new gross value? My hon. Friend has not reached his top form tonight.

Mr. Willis: I did not think that I had been too tolerant to the Rachmanites. I make no apology for being tolerant to the Government because one of my fundamental principles is never to kick anybody when he is down. They are still a bit punch drunk after the events of last week. One has to make allowance for that. I like to encourage them and cheer them on. I do not wish to be really hard on them. Nevertheless, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is bending over the wrong way towards the Rachmanites instead of towards the local authorities. I am quite sure that if it was not for this doctrinaire approach his better instincts would lead him to lean over towards the local authorities.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in all fairness he ought to cast these doctrinaire ideas aside for once, get on with the job to be done, and do it in a manner which will encourage the local authorities and enable them to do it quickly and without interference from the people whose job they are doing, the owners of the property.

Mr. MacColl: The right hon. Gentleman congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) on the way in which he presented this series of Amendments. I think that he might have congratulated me because my hon. Friend has been engaged upstairs on business of the House and had he not been able to be in the Chamber in time it would have fallen to me to move this Amendment. The more I listened to my hon. Friend doing so, the more I congratulated myself on having got out of an extraordinarily awkward job, because I think that he made his case in an unchallengeable way. He drove a coach and horses through the whole idea of a scheme based on estimates.
Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman said has enabled me to see really why it was necessary to have it. I can see the case for the scheme and for saying that when we are dealing with something which will be a capital charge extending beyond tie limits of the control order

we have to be clear what burden we are placing on the property. I accept that argument because it is at least a coherent argument.
But it is fantastic to go through this elaborate farce, because that is what it is, of thinking of an estimate of what will be the rent or the revenue and what will be the expenditure and playing an elaborate frame like this as the basis of the operation, when all the time the dispossessed proprietor will be breathing down the local authority's neck and looking over its shoulder at the accounts, and the mo rent that they go up into the credit side, going along to get a variation of the order, and then, in response to the local authority when things get a little worse, going again to get the position put back.
The right hon. Gentleman struggled heroically to try to get his case, but when he reduced himself to saying that unless we have this elaborate pantomime, how do we know that the local authorities will prepare estimates of their expenditure and revenue?—

Sir K. Joseph: indicated dissent.

Mr. MacColl: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman indicates that he did not say that. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who is astute in spite of the criticisms that have teen made of him today, in quoting the city treasurer of Edinburgh, was making precisely the same point that I am making. Any local authority which is administering something which ultimately may be a charge on the public funds has to prepare estimates on both sides of the account. Even if it is not a direct charge on the rate fund, if it is preparing estimates going to the housing repairs account it has to be most careful to prepare estimates on both sides of what the cost and the revenue will be. Whatever is done, any local authority, whose accounts will be subject to district audit, will look carefully at its accounts and make adequate estimates. Therefore, there is no case at all for saying that it is necessary to have these statutory estimates put into the administration.
The other point, which has not been made clear enough, is that we are not only thinking in terms of balance between the dispossessed proprietor and the local authority in the case of a particular


house but we are also looking at the problem of the balance between the gains and the losses on different houses with different control orders.
I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that in Committee he said:
We would assume that in the big cities there will be a handful of control-order dwellings in a number of authority areas, and we would assume that a local authority would probably make neither a profit nor a loss on the total transaction. We would assume that sometimes it sets its expectations—the repair and contingency reserves—a little on the high side or the low side but that, in general, it will break even. That is the intention."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 25th February, 1964; c. 1060.]
But how can one have this rough and ready measure of saying that the swings and roundabouts will balance when all the time one knows that there will be an appeal as soon as the dispossessed proprietor realises that there will be an advantage on one side?
8.0 p.m.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East said, we are not here dealing with prudent, wise and impressive citizens who are entitled to have their property rights carefully safeguarded. We are dealing with people who are either so wicked or so incompetent that they have let their property get into such an outrageous state that this drastic power must be enforced. We are dealing with people who have utterly neglected their property and let it sink so low that it is necessary for the local authority to step in and, as my hon. Friend said, do a spot of scavenging. No local authority will do it for the fun of the thing. No local authority will say, "Goody goody, we shall make a little on the rates by bunging in a few control orders to stop us

having to increase the rated in election year".

It will be an appalling job. The cost, the worry and the strain on officials, public health inspectors, housing managers, accountants and the rest, quite apart from anything which might come back in terms of finance, will put an appalling strain on the local authority in trying to do this miserable job because property has been allowed to becomes so degraded that it has to step in.

It is utterly foolish to put any financial burden unnecessarily upon the local authorities. Anybody who thinks about it for a moment will realise that the sensible thing to do is to say to the local authority, "You have balanced your expenditure and your income. You will pay to the landlord, the dispossessed proprietor, the gilt-edged dividend of half gross value, guaranteed on the rate fund, utterly regardless of how much money you have to spend on the property. He will have his gilt-edged security for the duration of the control order. For the rest, if he is lucky and there is a surplus, let him have it, but almost certainly there will not be anything and he ought to whistle for it because he has altogether failed in his duty".

Although it is a very complicated and technical Amendment, there is a very important point of social principle behind the argument. We must put a limit to the extent to which we are prepared to distort the administration and play this elaborate pantomime just to safeguard the interests of these bad property owners.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 139.

Division No. 72.]
AYES
[8.1 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Black, Sir Cyril
Chichester-Clark, R.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Bossom, Hon. Clive
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)


Allason, James
Bourne-Arton, A.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Braine, Bernard
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Cleaver, Leonard


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Cole, Norman


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Barlow, Sir John
Buck, Antony
Corfield, F. V.


Barter, John
Bullard, Denys
Coulson, Michael


Batsford, Brian
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Burden, F. A.
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Campbell, Gordon
Crawley, Aidan


Biffen, John
Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Critchley, Julian


Bingham, R. M.
Cary, Sir Robert
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Channon, H. P. G.
Curran, Charles




Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Redman, Rt. Hon. Martin


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Roots, William


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ropnor, Col. Sir Leonard


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Russell, Sir Ronald


Drayson, G. B.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Scott-Hopkins, James


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kershaw, Anthony
Seymour, Leslie


Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kimball, Marcus
Sharples, Richard


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kirk, Peter
Shaw, M.


Farr, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shepherd, William


Finlay, Graeme
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Smith, Dudley (Br'nt'fd &amp; Chiswick)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Stainton, Keith


Freeth, Denzil
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'ld field)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Gammans, Lady
Loveys, Walter H.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Glover, Sir Douglas
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Studholme, Sir Henry


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gower, Raymond
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Grant-Ferris, R.
MacArthur, Ian
Teeling, Sir William


Green, Alan
McLaren, Martin
Temple, John M.


Gurden, Harold
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marten, Neil
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Turner, Colin


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Mawby, Ray
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hay, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Mills, Stratton
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hiley, Joseph
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker, Peter


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Morrison, John
Wall, Patrick


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Neave, Airey
Ward, Dame Irene


Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Whitelaw, William


Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Holland, Philip
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hollingworth, John
Partridge, E.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hornby, R. P.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wise, A. R.


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Peel, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Percival, Ian
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Worsley, Marcus


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pitt, Dame Edth
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch



James, David
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jennings, J. C.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Mr. Hugh Rees and


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pym, Francis
Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Fitch, Alan
Lipton, Marcus


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Eric
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bacon, Miss Alice
Forman, J. C.
McBride, N.


Bence, Cyril
Galpern, Sir Myer
McCann, J.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gourlay, Harry
MacColl, James


Benson, Sir George
Greenwood, Anthony
MacDermot, Niall


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McLeavy, Frank


Blyton, William
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Manuel, Archie


Boardman, H.
Hannan, William
Mapp, Charles


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Harper, Joseph
Mason, Roy


Bowles, Frank
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mayhew, Christopher


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hilton, A. V.
Mendelson, J. J.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Holman, Percy
Millan, Bruce


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hooson, H. E.
Milne, Edward


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Houghton, Douglas
Mitchison, G. R.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Monslow, Walter


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Chapman, Donald
Hunter, A. E.
Mulley, Frederick


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Neal, Harold


Cronin, John
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Oliver, G. H.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
O'Malley, B. K.


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Sir Barnett
Oram, A. E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jeger, George
Oswald, Thomas


Deer, George
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Paget, R. T.


Delargy, Hugh
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parkin, B. T.


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dodds, Norman
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Doig, Peter
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, Norman


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Popplewell, Ernest


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Kelley, Richard
Prentice, R. E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, George
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Probert, Arthur


Evans, Albert
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Rankin, John







Redhead, E. C.
Skeffington, Arthur
Symonds, J. B.


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, 8.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Taverne, D.


Rhodes, H.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgeftetd)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Small, William
Thornton, Ernest


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Snow, Julian
Wade, Donald


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Warbey, William


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilkins, W. A.


Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Steele, Thomas
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Ross, William
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Short, Edward
Stones, William
Woof, Robert


Silkin, John
Stress, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Swain, Thomas



Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Swingler, Stephen
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Grey and Mr. Whitlock.

Amendment made: In page 76, line 1, leave out from beginning to "what" and insert "specify".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 76, line 27, to leave out "next following" and insert: "following provisions of this".
Perhaps we can take with this Amendment those in page 76, line 28, leave out from "appeal" to "under" in line 29 and insert "or an application", in line 30, at end insert:
(5) The local authority may at any time vary the scheme in such a way as to increase the amount of the surpluses on revenue account as settled by the scheme for all or any periods (including past periods);
in Clause 76, page 78, line 28, leave out from "under" to "and" in line 29 and insert "this Part of this Act"; in line 30 leave out "by way of appeal" and insert:
under the following provisions of this Part of this Act";
in line 32, leave out "the appeal is"; in line 36, leave out "on the appeal" and insert "in the proceedings"; in page 79, line 47, leave out "on the appeal" and insert "in the proceedings"; in Clause 79, page 82, line 24 leave out from beginning to "if" in line 25 and insert:
(2) Without prejudice to the right of appeal conferred by the foregoing subsection, either the local authority or any person having an estate or interest in the house may at any time apply to the county court for a review of the estimate of the surpluses on revenue account in the scheme.
(3) On an appeal or an application under this section the court may, as it thinks fit, confirm or vary the scheme (but on an application under subsection (2) not so as to affect the provisions of the scheme relating to the works).
(4).
in line 31 at end insert:
(4) On an application under subsection (2) of this section the surpluses on revenue account as settled by the scheme may be varied for all or any periods, including past

periods, and the county court shall take into consideration whether in the period since the control order came into force the actual balances mentioned in section 74(3)(c) of this Act have exceeded, or been less than, the surpluses on revenue account as settled by the scheme as for the time being in force, and shall also take into consideration whether there has been any change in circumstances such that the number of persons or households who should live in the house, or the net amount of the rents and other payments receivable by the local authority from persons occupying the house, ought to be greater or less than was originally estimated.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that is agreeable to the House, yes.

Sir K. Joseph: This is the group of Amendments which carries out the Government's undertaking given in Committee to allow the local authority to appeal to the court to reduce the settled surplus so as to balance the right given to the dispossessed proprietor, which was originally in the Bill, to appeal to the court to raise the settled surplus. In amending the Bill, we have found it easiest to eliminate Clause 75 as drafted and to redistribute the various parts of it into Clauses 74 and 79.
This is a series of drafting Amendments, but the real substance of the matter is to put into Clause 74 a power to the local authority to raise the settled surplus at its own discretion either on its own initiative or on the approach of any party interested in the property. This means that if the dispossessed proprietor or any other party interested in the party seeks to have the settled surplus raised and the local authority agrees that it should be raised, there is no need to bother the court.
In all other cases in which either the local authority wishes to have the settled surplus reduced or a party interested in the property wishes to have it raised but the local authority does not agree, there is now in Clause 79 a right of appeal to the court and a right given to the court to vary the settled surplus up or down.
There are two other points which I should mention. The first is that the application to the court for an alteration in the settled surplus shall not in any way hold up the effectiveness of a works order. The second is that the court shall take into account the trend of the actual settled surplus—that is, the outcome of the actual revenue and expenditure account. But the whole flavour of the Bill gives the settled surplus a long-term standing. I suggest that the court would not be willing to alter on a review without seeing the alteration supported by a real long term trend. Otherwise, it would only bring work upon itself by inviting applications on every minor fluctuation.
I put the Amendments to the House in order to achieve a number of minor drafting points.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Millan:: I mentioned on the previous Amendment in anticipation a criticism of this series of Amendments. Perhaps I can make it briefly now.
If these Amendments are carried, the position will be much fairer than it is under the Bill and we shall also get an increasingly artificial position. We are now giving local authorities as well as the dispossessed proprietor the right to appeal to have the surplus varied. That is only just, because the surpluses may have been estimated at too high a figure. That part of the Amendment is, naturally, acceptable. All the Amendments are certainly an improvement on the Bill.
However, an absurd position is reached when we see in the Amendment in Clause 79, page 82, line 31, that any adjustments to the surpluses, the estimates, can be retrospective. The Amendments say that they can be
for all or any periods, including past periods…".
It is misleading for the Minister to say that the whole flavour of the Bill is intended to give the surpluses as settled by the scheme a long term aspect. That is not what will happen. I imagine that one will not necessarily get applications to the court every six months of every year, but if the application is successful and the adjustments are made retrospectively this can bring the whole financial transaction on to an actual as distinct from an estimated basis, which

is precisely the matter about which we were arguing on the previous Amendment.
I find it extremely difficult to see why the Minister should have been so adamant about refusing the other Amendments and so pleased with these Amendments. To have gone right over from the actual to the estimated surpluses would have got us there in one jump without the necessity of all these applications having to be made to the court. I do not know what happens about legal expenses. I suppose that the court could make an order about them. I do not know what the legal position is.
Apart from this being a complicated way of going about the matter which is likely to lead to certain delays and anxieties for the local authority, it must be a very pensive way. Although what is proposed is better than the Bill as it stands, I am very disappointed that the Government should have chosen this elaborate way of doing things.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 76, line 28, leave out from "appeal" to "under" in line 29 and insert "or an application".

In page 75, line 30, at end insert:
(5) The local authority may at any time vary the scheme in such a way as to increase the amount of the surpluses on revenue account as settled by the scheme for all or any periods (including past periods).

In page 76, line 37, leave out Clause 75.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 76.—(RECOVERY OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CARRYING OUT WORKS INCLUDED IN SCHEME.)

Amendments made: In page 78, line 12, leave out "house" and insert "premises".

In line 13, leave out "house" and insert "premises".

In line l4, leave out "house" and insert "premises".

In line 15, leave out "house" and insert "premises".

In line 28, leave out from "under" to "and" in line 29 and insert "this Part of this Act".

In line 30, leave out "by way of appeal" and insert:
under the following provisions of this Part of this Act".

In line 32, leave out "the appeal is".

In line 36, leave out "on the appeal" and insert "in the proceedings".—[Mr. Corfield.]

In page 79, line 47, leave out "on the appeal" and insert "in the proceedings".—[Mr. G. Campbell.]

Clause 78.—(APPEAL AGAINST CONTROL ORDER.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, Amendment No. 141 in page 81, line 5, to leave out "Within fourteen" and to insert:
At any time after the making of a control order, but not later than the expiration of a period of six".
This Amendment and the following four are concerned with the same matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and can conveniently go together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): If the House is agreeable.

Mr. Corfield: This series of Amendments alters the time limit within which an interested party may appeal against a control order or a local authority's scheme. As drafted, the Bill allowed a period of six weeks to the local authority for the preparation and service of a copy of the scheme and a further six weeks to an interested party in which to appeal, making a total of twelve weeks in all.
In Committee, the Government moved an Amendment to extend the initial period—the period for the local authority to produce its scheme—to eight weeks at the instigation of the local authority associations. A number of hon. Members, notably the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), said that those periods were too long and that certainly the total of 14 weeks was too long. The present Amendments are by way of compromise. We preserve the eight weeks to the local authority but, under the Amendments, the six weeks for the time of appeal will run from the date of service of the copy of the scheme, whatever date that is, so that it will not necessarily be the full fourteen weeks before an appeal can be taken. It will be up to the local authority
inasmuch as the sooner that it produces its scheme, the sooner the six weeks period for appeal will run out and the sooner the time will arrive when the local authority can be certain where it stands.

Mr. Cole: I do not disagree with the intention of the Amendment, but I am not sure that the position is exactly as my hon. Friend has described. As amended in Committee, Clause 78 states:
Within fourteen weeks from the date on which a control order comes into force"—
which, I presume, is simultaneous more or less with the service of it on the interested parties, to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has referred. The Amendment uses the words:
At any time after the making of a control order
which, as far as I can see, is approximately the same time—
but not later than the expiration of a period of six weeks".
Clearly, we are cutting down a period of fourteen weeks, which I agree is too long, to six weeks, which is probably just about right. Do both periods date from the same datum line? There may be a subtle difference which I do not appreciate, but it seems that what we have done is, quite properly, to cut down the period by eight weeks.

Mr. Corfield: If my hon. Friend reads the first two Amendments together and inserts them in the right place in the Bill, he will see that subsection (1) of Clause 78 starts as follows:
At any time after the making of a control order, but not later than the expiration of a period of six weeks from the date on which a copy of the relevant scheme is served in accordance with section 74(1) of this Act".

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 81, line 5, leave out from "which" to "any" in line 6 and insert:
a copy of the relevant scheme is served in accordance with section 74(1) of this Act".—[Mr. Corfield.]

Clause 79.—(APPEAL AGAINST SCHEME.)

Amendments made: In page 82, line 3, leave out "fourteen" and insert "six".

In line 3, leave out from "which" to "any" line line 4 and insert:
a copy of the relevant scheme is served in accordance with section 74(1) of this Act".

In line 6, leave out from beginning to "on" and insert "that scheme".—[Mr. Corfield.]

Amendment proposed: In Page 82, line 15, leave out from first "number".—[Mr. Corfield]

Mr. Cole: As I read the Bill as it will be amended by this and the following Amendment, it will state in subsection (1, c) of Clause 79 that
the number of individuals or households as specified by the local authority in the scheme is unreasonably low".
I know exactly what the Government are trying to do, but I wonder whether they have done it. The "limit fixed by the scheme" in the original paragraph (c) is an executive action.
Now, although it is extremely difficult to follow this, it is to state that
the number of individuals or households as specified by the local authority in the scheme…
Two different things are being mixed. One is the actual fact of the people who are or are not living in the house, and the other is the specification by the local authority that the number is too small. One is a physical fact and the other is an executive decision. This is all much more complicated and difficult than before.
One of the grounds of appeal under paragraph (c) was that the limit fixed by the local authority for the number of households in the house—in other words, those who paid rent—was too small and should be increased, and, presumably, there would be good ground for appeal. Now, we are to state that the number is to be specified by the local authority. But there is no question about a local authority specifying. Either the people are in the house or they are not.
I cannot understand why we are making the matter more complicated in trying to amend the Clause. I have spent some little time on this, and on this occasion, with great respect to my hon. Friend, I have brought in together both the Amendments which bear on the matter. I should be very glad to

hear what the purpose is which he is trying to obtain by the change.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Millan: While I do not find the new wording quite as ambiguous as does the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole), I think that he is making a valid point, that the now wording really is not as satisfactory as the old. I know the reason why the Government are changing the wording here, because they have changed the wording in Clause 74(3,b). If the Government look at that paragraph they will see there is a reference to
the highest number of individuals or house holds
who are to be able to live in the house from time to time.
I would suggest that if they are to change the wording in Clause 79, they will have to change it rather more radically than they are by these two Amendments, which are ambiguous, I think, and should probably have to make a reference to the highest number of individuals or households which the local authority would consider reasonable. I hope, therefore, that I may support the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire, South, and that the Government may even withdraw the two Amendments, and have a look at them again, and put them right in another place. I do not think that the wording is quite right as they are amending it now.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: in page 82, line 16, after "house", insert:
as specified by the local authority in the scheme".—[Mr. Corfield.]

Amendment proposed: In page 82, line 24, leave out from beginning to "if" in line 25 and insert:
(2) Without prejudice to the right of appeal conferred by the foregoing subsection, either the local authority or any person having an estate or interest in the house may at any time apply to the county court for a review of the estimate of the surpluses on revenue account in the scheme.
(3) On an appeal or an application under this section the court may, as it thinks fit, confirm or vary the scheme (but on an application under subsection (2) not so as to affect the provisions of the scheme relating to the works).
(4).—[Mr. Corfield.]

Mr. Cole: I should like to raise a point of information. It is obviously a matter of commonsense that under the Bill as amended by the Standing Committee the court can confirm or not confirm a scheme. After all, that is what the court is there for, but what I do not understand is what now happens to the court's power to vary a scheme I can assure my hon. Friend that I have looked at the subsection and at this Amendment and the following Amendment, and that I think I can find my way around the subsection and the Amendments, but I can see nowhere how any suggestion about what happens to the power of the court to vary the scheme itself for capital works. Is it implicit in the power of the court to deny or to grant a scheme? In other words, are these words necessary? I am not cavilling, but just seeking information, and perhaps my hon. Friend could tell me.

Mr. Corfield: I am sorry, but we did discuss this earlier. My hon. Friend has shot this at me and I have not yet found the actual point in the Bill—

Mr. Cyril Bence: Oh. really!

Mr. Corfield: —but I will certainly make sure that it does what it was purported to do when my right hon. Friend introduced it. Having discussed it earlier, I have now lost the place, because I had moved on.

Mr. Bence: I have come into this debate to listen because I find the Bill very difficult indeed, and I have been wading through these Amendments, following the matter up, trying to follow all the arguments, because I want to understand the matter, because, naturally, I shall have to explain it to my constituents from time to time—and now I find we are informed by the Minister in charge of the Bill that he does not understand it himself. This is a serious situation.
Would I be in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in moving that further consideration of the Bill be adjourned until someone comes on to the Tory Bench who knows something about it? It is a waste of time sitting here listening to the discussion on the Bill when the Minister in charge does not understand it. This

is a shocking situation. In the 13 years I have been a Member of the House I have never before heard a Minister say he did not understand the Bill being discussed.

Mr. Corfield: I did not say that I did not understand it. What I said was that we had discussed a large number of Amendments together, and when my hon. Friend suddenly picked out one from the bunch I was not very quick in finding out exactly where it fitted into the whole story of the series of Amendments. Certainly, four Amendments were taken together, and probably more. It is very difficult to answer an odd case on one of the Amendments, particularly when it was not the major one.
If it would be in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to reopen exactly what my right hon. Friend said when we started this series of Amendments—the first one was in Clause 74, page 76, line 30—I will do it, but I can only say what my right hon. Friend has already said.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member will be in order in referring back to an Amendment which was accepted and which was discussed with this one.

Mr. Cole: If, by leave of the House, may speak again, I would say that I have done my best within the limits of physical requirements over the last three hours to be in this Chamber, and I heard most of the debate on the 10 Amendments. The last thing I wanted to do was to ask my hon. Friend a question out of the blue. This is a very minor point, and I do not think it was discussed, because much more important matters were debated.
I merely ask—I shall be quite happy if my hon. Friend will send me a note afterwards—what happens about the powers of a court to vary a scheme? Are they unnecessary? Do they still exist? If they do exist, I cannot find them in the Bill. It may be that the whole thing is de minimis, in which case I am sorry that I raised it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As I have said, it is in order on this Amendment to refer back by way of explanation of the Amendment now before the House.

Mr. Corfield: The Bill, as amended, retains general powers. This Amendment was originally taken with the


Amendment in Clause 74, page 73, line 30, and with it an Amendment to Clause 75 and two Amendments to Clause 79.
The purpose of these Amendments, which ran together, was to meet the criticism of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) during the Committee stage. He complained about the capital debt due to the authority for works undertaken under a control order on the settled surplus basis. My right hon. Friend undertook to put into the Bill a power for the local authority to apply to the court for the settled surplus to be reduced. In the Bill originally there was a power the other way round. All the Amendments I have mentioned are designed for the same purpose, and one is consequential on the other. I am sorry that it was not clear originally to my hon. Friend, but it is rather difficult to explain one bit without going through the whole thing again.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 31, at end insert:
(4) On an application under subsection (2) of this section the surpluses on revenue account as settled by the scheme may be varied for all or any periods, including past periods, and the county court shall take into consideration whether in the period since the control order came into force the actual balances mentioned in section 74(3)(c) of this Act have exceeded, or been less than, the surpluses on revenue account as settled by the scheme as for the time being in force, and shall also take into consideration whether there has been any change in circumstances such that the number of persons or households w ho should live in the house, or the net amount of the rents and other payments receivable by the local authority from persons occupying the house, ought to be greater or less than was originally estimated.—[Mr. Corfield.]

Clause 80.—(REVOCATION OF CONTROL ORDER BY COURT ON APPEAL.)

Amendments made:

In page 84, line 8, leave out "house" and insert "premises".

In line 9, leave out "house" and insert "premises".

In line 11, leave out "house" and insert "premises".

In line 12, leave out "house" and insert "premises".—[Mr. Corfield.]

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 155, page 84, line 31, at the end to insert:
Provided that the court shall not under this subsection give a direction which will afford to the dispossessed proprietor a sum greater than what he may, in the opinion of the court, have lost by the making of the control order.
This Amendment meets an under taking given to the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans). In subsection (4) as it stands, a local authority, on the revocation of a control order, is obliged on appeal to pay the dispossessed proprietor any surpluses made on the running of the house The hon. Member suggested that there ought to be a limit on the amount paid so that it should not exceed the loss to the dispossessed proprietor. This is clearly reasonable and the Amendment effects than improvement.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 156, in page 84, line 31, at the end to insert:
(8A) If on an appeal against the control order the county court decides that the control order should be revoked, the county court shall fix the date on which the control order is to be revoked without regard to whether an appeal has been or may be brought against the decision of the county court, but that shall not prevent the local authority from bringing an appeal in accordance with the provisions of section 108 of the County Courts Act 1959.
It may be convenient with this Amendment to take Amendment No. 157 in page 85, line 5, at end insert:
(c) subsection (8A) shall not apply.
and Amendment No. 161, in page 86, line 43, at end insert:
(7A) If on an appeal under this section the county court decides to revoke the control order, the court may make an order under which the revocation does not take effect until the time for appealing against the decision of the county court has expired and until any such appeal brought within that time has been finally determined.
and Amendment No. 162, in page 87, line 29, at end insert:
(b) subsection (7A) shall not apply.
The first Amendment deals with the case where, under Clause 80, there is an appeal against the control order and the county court determines that the order should be revoked. The ordinary rule is that the decision of the county court on fact and merit is final, although


appeal to the High Court lies in a matter of law. It should be borne in mind that by Clause 78(4), where the appeal to the county court is based on the ground that the control order is invalid, the court is required to confirm the order unless it is satisfied that the invalidity has been such that the interests of the appellant have been substantially prejudiced. On the face of it, the opportunity for appeal from the county court is fairly limited.
Nevertheless, it is right to provide that, although the decision of the county court in revoking the order must clearly have the effect of the order dying from the moment the court makes its decision, the local authority should not be deprived of its right of appeal on a point of law, because the matter might affect its whole policy. It has also to be borne in mind that the county court circuit would probably cover the whole of a local authority area and it might be important to have a more authoritative determination on the point of law although, from a practical point of view, if ex hypothesi a control order has been thrown out because of a technical invalidity, the easiest way of going about it would probably be to serve another control order free of the particular defect.
The Amendment is to make it clear that the right of appeal still exists and that either party may go to the court of appeal to get an authoritative decision, although the revocation order comes to an end on the date determined by the county court.
8.45 p.m.
The next Amendment, No. 157, is necessary because, I understand, the Scottish law is quite different on this matter. An appeal from the sheriff court always lies to the Court of Session by way of case stated. So it is always possible to obtain a decision of the higher court before the lower court actually makes its decision. Therefore it is not necessary to make a special provision here to enable the appeal court to make a decision after the lower court has made its decision.
The third Amendment in the group, No. 161, amends Clause 82. There we are dealing with the right of a local authority to appeal against the decision

of the county court that the control order which has been accepted as valid in the past and must be assumed to be valid should now be revoked. In this case, although the appeal is preserved—there is no difficulty about that—it seems right that by the Amendment the county court should have the right to defer the coming into force of the order of revocation. In other words, the county court will be able, in view of the fact that there is an appeal, to say, "We do not feel it right that the order should come to an end until the appeal has been settled." Otherwise we might have the situation in which the order would be on at one moment, off at another and then on again.
We are dealing in the second case with an order which must be assumed as legally valid and justified on its merits by the fact that the county court either approves it in the first place on appeal, or because there was no appeal, and the Bill makes the order itself conclusive. We have a corresponding Scottish provision in Amendment No. 162, which makes sure that this does not apply to Scotland because of the difference in the law which I have just mentioned.

Mr. Willis: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation and accepting the explanation of the first Scottish Amendment, I am not quite certain what the reasons are for the second one. The hon. Gentleman did not explain it thoroughly. He simply satisfied himself—rather wisely, I thought—by saying that Scottish legal procedure is rather different.

Mr. Corfield: The reason is exactly the same in both the Scottish Amendments. I understand that in the sheriff court appeal to the Court of Session is always by way of case stated. Therefore, there is the decision in the appeal court before the decision is made in the junior court. We cut out this provision in both cases because the procedure is the opposite way round from that in this country.

Mr. Willis: If the hon. Gentleman had said that in the first place we might have followed it, but he did not do so. He merely said that the procedures were different. Now he has said in what way they are different. He has explained them and explained that a stated case permits all the necessary


time. I do not wish to pursue the matter further; I merely wanted an explanation.

Mr. Manuel: It is time that we brought the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland into our proceedings. He has been sitting on the Government Front Bench gasping to be heard, but the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary have been stealing all the thunder. The Under-Secretary has not been allowed to explain the Scottish repercussions to these Amendments. My hon. Friends will recognise that within the last half hour we have been wading through a mass of Amendments and counter Amendments and changes of Clauses which have altered them quite unbelievably.
I sympathise with the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) in trying to get the information which he desires to clear his mind on the legal implications. Clause 79 (2), which deals with an appeal against a control order, reads:
On the appeal the court may, as it thinks fit, confirm or vary the scheme, and if an appeal has been brought against the control order and the court decide on the appeal to revoke the control order, the court shall not proceed with any appeal against the scheme relating to that control order.
There is some difficulty in grappling with the position. What are the repercussions of the Amendment on Clause 79?

Mr. Corfield: If the court decides that the control order is not valid, then clearly the scheme under the control order cannot have any validity either. It therefore follows that there is no point in going on to consider the scheme or any appeal against it.

Mr. Manuel: Clause 79 has built a citadel of control orders and then, on appeal, it collapses and we are left with nothing. What is done with the building and the family concerned?

Mr. Corfield: As I said earlier, if the court decides to revoke on a technicality which can be right in practice, it is open to the local authority to make another order without the defect to which the county court objected. But if the county court throws the order out on merits on the ground that the house is not one to which it should have been applied on the facts of the case and the evidence,

then the order is dead, and unless the circumstances changed and the facts were different it would be irresponsible of the local authority to come forward again on exactly the same ground as that on which is had been turned down. The idea of the appeal procedure is that there can be a judicial and independent determination of whether these are circumstances which justify this drastic action.

Mr. Manuel: I thank the hon. Member for trying to answer the question. It leads to many more questions, such as who will pay the court expenses and will the local authority levy a rate to meet them but it clears the position as far as I want to go.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 85, line 5, at end insert:
(c) subsection (8A) shall not apply.—[Mr. Campbell.]

Clause 82.—(TERMINATION OF CONTROL ORDER.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 159, in page 86, line 12, to leave out "thirty-five and to insert "forty-two".
I hope that this Amendment meets some criticism raised on the point in Standing Committee by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel):and others that the 35 days in the present print was too short. We had a considerable argument and eventually it was suggested that we might meet the criticism to the extent of a week or two. We have taken the generous end of the bracket and have gone from 35 days to 42 days, which, I hope, is a compromise which will be accepted.

Mr. Willis: The Amendment was sought by one of my hon. Friends for one of the Glasgow divisions. Glasgow argued that it required rather more time to go through the processes of the council. Even though the increase is small and does not go anywhere near what Glasgow asked for, nevertheless we are grateful for the small concession.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 86, line 16, at the end to insert:
Provided that if an appeal has been brought under this section, then, except with the leave of the county court, another appeal shall not be so brought, whether by the same or a different appellant, in respect of the same control


order until the expiration of a period of six months beginning with the final determination of the first-mentioned appeal.
The Amendment is designed to limit the load on the county courts and the number of appeals and the rapidity with which they can be brought on the same issue by different interested parties in the same property. The matter was first raised in Committee by the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), who was supported, particularly with reference to the load on county courts, by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington).
All that the Amendment does is to make it necessary for a prospective appellant to have the leave of the court if appealing within six months of the determination of another appeal in respect of the same order and the same premises. This is a considerable improvement on the original Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 43, at end insert:
(7A) if on an appeal under this section the county court decides to revoke the control order, the court may make an order under which the revocation does not take effect until the time for appealing against the decision of the county court has expired and until any such appeal brought within that time has been finally determined.—[Mr. Corfield.]

In page 87, line 29, at end insert:
(b) subsection (7A) shall not apply.—[Mr. G. Campbell.]

Clause 83.—(EFFECT OF CESSATION OF CONTROL ORDER.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 87, line 43, at the end to insert:
(2) Where the county court on an appeal against a control order, or on an appeal under the last foregoing section, revokes a control order the court may authorise the local authority under section 69(2) of this Act to create interests which expire, or which the dispossessed proprietor can terminate, within six months from the time when the control order ceases to have effect, being interests which, notwithstanding subsection (3) of the said section 69, are for a fixed term exceeding one month, or are terminable by notice to quit (or an equivalent notice) of more than four weeks.
We touched on this Amendment, though we did not discuss it fully, when dealing with two earlier Amendments.

This is the Amendment to which I referred when replying to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). It gives the county court a power to authorise the local authority to create leases or interests akin to leases up to six months at the time when an appeal is brought either against the order in the first place, or against a refusal to revoke the order. We discussed the principle fairly fully earlier.

Mr. Cole: I admit that it is a question of opinion which nobody can prove, but I still feel that the words added by an earlier Amendment will be more effective than will this Amendment. However, I rise to address my hon. Friend on another point. I raised a similar question in Committee. I may be far too simple in these matters, but if an issue is taken before a court one gets either confirmation or denial. That seems to be the whole foundation of justice. The Amendment says this:
Where the county court on an appeal against a control order, or on an appeal under the last foregoing section, revokes a control order".
Those are the operative words. The court revokes a control order; it says that the control order shall no longer be so.
9.0 p.m.
The Amendment continues:
…the court may authorise the local authority under section 69(2) of this Act to create interests which expire, or which the dispossessed proprietor can terminate, within six months from the time when the control order ceases to have effect,…".
Odd though it may seem, I do not object to those interests being created. But it may be practicable and possible, and probably more desirable, that these interests should be created from other powers we have now put in the Bill, bearing in mind the fact that, firstly, the court would be turned into a judicial tribunal to decide how much should be given to one side or the other—which is not the function of a county court—and, secondly, the court would have to decide how far it should go in length of time with the creation of a lease. I cannot see the motives involved here, and there is no explanation in the Clause about the actual creation of those interests.
What will happen if it is discovered that a control order should never have been made or that one was made wrongly or without due consideration? Is it possible that the court will, in that event, still have power to grant a six months' lease to enable the local authority to get back its money? I hope my hon. Friend realises that justice applies to all and not to just the local authority. It applies, equally, to the dispossesed proprietor, although he may have been extremely wicked in one way or another.
I referred to this matter in Committee, and I do so now because, although I may have been in a minority of one—which does not worry me in the least—I cannot understand why, if a court is being asked to adjudicate, it should have to say, "You cannot have this but you can have something else in its place". This is not like a court making probation orders. It will be concerned with making a decision about whether or not a control order has been rightly or wrongly made and what should then he done in the event of the decision to make a control order having been wrongly made.
I agree with the powers implicit in the Amendment, but I do not accept that this is the best way of effecting them. I do not consider it justice. County courts have enough to do without having to worry about what degree of leases should be given, and I am convinced this is not the best method of trying to administer justice between local authorities and individuals.

Mr. Ede: The Government are not treating the House fairly on this part of the Bill, which we have been discussing for the last hour or more. One can sympathise with the Parliamentary Secretary. He sits in his place like Casablanca. His right hon. Friend has gone and although we have been dealing with extremely complicated legal matters—and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) has just pointed out how complex this Amendment is—we have not had the advice of one of the Law Officers of the Crown on exactly how this Amendment will work in practice in the courts. I hope an explanation can be given to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South about

the Amendment, because we are taking grave risks in passing or rejecting Amendments when we have no legal advice about their exact import and how, on these complicated legal matters, they will work in practice in the courts.

Mr. Corfield: I feel almost overcome with the suggestion that I should be in some way deputising for one of the Law Officers in this complex matter. There is nothing new in putting on to county courts jurisdiction in relation to leases. We have is in a number of sections in the old Landlord and Tenant Act, and I suggest that there were far more complex jurisdictions under the old Rent Acts.
What is proposed is that the county court should have the power—and I want to make this clear, because my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole), probably by a slip of the tongue, put it differently—to authorise a local authority to grant leases to tenants before handing over to the former proprietor or his successor in title. It is not a question of the local authority taking the lease, but of the local authority creating a lease that will operate in favour of a tenant against the person to whom the property is handed back.
If, on appeal, the court thinks that the control order should be revoked and is of opinion that it is an order that should never have been made, the court clearly would not regard it as right to use this particular power for that type of order, but one can readily imagine a number of cases in which the order when made by the local authority was clearly justified and right but, where, owing to the ameliorating action taken by the proprietor in the meantime, the court might well say, "This has had its effect. Provided that you, the owner, are prepared to be ser Bible with your tenants and agree to reasonable security of tenure, we think that there is no good reason to confirm this order."
From there, the court can go a step further and say, "We don't think that there is any reason to confirm the order now, but in view of the past history it would be reasonable to authorise the local authority to give leases of this sort." I cannot believe that that is outside the ordinary competence of the


county court, and I was a little nonplussed by my hon. Friend when he said that this was a judicial interpretation—I hope that I do not misquote him—as between the local authority and the dispossessed owner, and that that was not the function of the court. What else is the function of the court other than judicial interpretation, I do not know, and I should have thought it an admirable body to determine such an issue. I therefore hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: I am quite happy that the Scottish Law Officers are not here because, had they been here, I doubt whether we would have reached Amendment No. 163. The effect of their presence is usually to cause more misunderstanding than when we do not have them, so I am quite glad they are not here.
I am satisfied to have the Under-Secretary of State, but, unfortunately, we do not hear from him; we are getting all our legal explanations from the Parliamentary Secretary. Whilst I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has handled these Scottish matters with great skill, I feel that it would be more fitting the dignity of Scottish legislation if the legal aspects of Scottish Measures were dealt with by a Scottish Minister. This is a casting aside of power by the Scottish Office that I am sure would not be acceptable in Scotland, were it realised.
What the Scottish Law Times would say about this, if it knew of it, I hesitate to think. It had bitter words to say about the Bill and the way in which it was handled. It called the Bill the greatest hotchpotch of Scottish legislation ever introduced into the House of Commons and if, in addition, it thought that it was now being handled by an English Minister I am quite confident that its wrath would know no bounds.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State not to be so shy, but to tell us what the effect is in the Scottish sheriff court. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) who said that he did not think that this was a suitable matter for the courts to judge.

Mr. Cole: I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish to misinterpret my words or meaning. I said that the

court should be deciding the rights or wrongs of making a control order, and I asked what would be the result of that decision.

Mr. Willis: We have been discussing elsewhere a Scottish Measure dealing with shop tenancies under which the sheriff court is bound to take into consideration matters such as these. I think that this is something which the court should have the power to do, but I should like to have the views of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on whether this duty which we are placing on the sheriff court is in accordance with the practice of that court.

Mr. G. Campbell: As hon. Members opposite who represent Scottish constituencies know, I had a great deal more to do with the Bill in Committee than I have had today on Report because many of these Amendments which are similar in Scotland have naturally been taken in a group by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government as a matter of convenience when a number of Amendments are being taken together. My hon. Friend admirably covered the Scottish points which in this matter were straightforward.
I am, however, glad to rise to assure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that in this edition which we are now proposing the effect is similar in Scotland, because the sheriff court, which throughout the Bill is read with the county court that is mentioned for England and Wales, has similar jurisdiction and the practice is similar in that court. This proposed additional subsection, therefore, would have an exactly similar effect in Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 87.—(INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF PART IV.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 89, to leave out lines 4 to 8.
This is a drafting Amendment made desirable if not absolutely necessary by a later Government Amendment to Clause 102 whereby a lease is to be defined for all the purposes of the Bill in


terms almost identical with those which are now left out of this Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in line 39, at the end to insert:
(3) References in this Part of this Act to expenditure incurred in respect of a house subject to a control order include, in a case where the local authority—

(a) require persons living in the house to vacate their accommodation for any period while the local authority are carrying out works in the house, and
(b) defray all or any part of the expenses incurred by or on behalf of those persons removing from and returning to the house, or provide housing accommodation for those persons for any part of that period,

references to the sums so defrayed by the local authority, and to the net cost to the local authority of so providing housing accommodation.
(4) For the purposes of this Part of this Act the withdrawal of an appeal shall be deemed the final determination thereof having the like effect as a decision dismissing the appeal.
This Amendment, which inserts two new subsections to the Clause, requires looking at in two parts because the two subsections are not closely related. The first new subsection (3) is a clarifying Amendment which arises from the question posed in Committee by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), who asked whether the Clause, as drafted, would cover the cost of moving and providing with temporary accommodation persons from a house affected by a control order while necessary works were being carried out.
My right hon. Friend and I made it clear that this was the intention, although on examining the text of the Bill more closely we came to the conclusion that it should be made abundantly clear. This is the objective of the new subsection (3) in the Amendment. I am sure that it meets the point that the hon. Member had in mind.
The new subsection (4), again, is somewhat similar to the Amendment we have just passed in the sense that it lifts a similar provision from a separate Clause, Clause 61, and makes it of general application to this part of the Bill by putting it in this new place in Clause 87.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 91.—(AMENDMENTS OF CLEAN AIR ACT, 1956, RELATING TO DWELLINGS.)

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 168, in page 95, line 38, to leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker( Sir W. Anstruther-Gray): In calling this Amendment it will be convenient also to discuss Amendments Nos. 169, in page 95, line 38, leave out "as soon as is practicable".

Amendment No. 170, in line 41, after made)", insert:
and before notice of its making is first published in accordance with Schedule 1 to that Act".
and Amendment No. 171, in page 96, line 9, at end insert:
A copy of the terms of the resolution passed by a local authority under this subsection shall be sent within twenty-one days thereafter to the Minister and shall be taken into account by him in determining whether or not the order should be confirmed.
with Divisions on all the Amendments if so desired.

Mr. Millan: Clause 91 as it stands makes quite substantial changes in the Clean Air Act, 1956. In fact, I think it would be true to say that it makes fundamental changes in that Act. The original intention of the 1956 Act, so far as domestic households are concerned, was to apply compulsion towards getting smokeless areas but to do that at the same time by paying grant to occupiers to enable them to meet the bulk of the cost to which they would be put in meeting the requirements of a clean air order.
That was the first principle, that there should be compulsion, but, on the other hand, that there should be some financial compensation to the occupier. The second principle, as I understood it and as I think it has been operated under the Act, was that there should be a reasonable freedom of choice to the domestic occupier to choose the kind of conversion to clean air that he found most satisfactory or that most met his particular tastes in the matter.
Under this Clause the whole basis of the Act is being changed. These two principles really go together. It is not much use saying that we are going to


pay grant to occupiers for making conversions to meet the requirements of a clean air order unless, at the same time, we give a certain freedom of choice to the occupiers. If we give them a restricted freedom of choice or say that we will only pay grant for kinds of conversions which occupiers do not choose, the whole principle of paying grant goes by the board. This is what seems to me is being done by this Clause.
What will happen under subsections (2) and (3) is that both the local authority by means of a resolution and the Government by means of a designation will be able to say that certain kinds of appliances will not be eligible for grant because these appliances burn fuel in a way which is unsuitable for the area of the particular authority, or generally, considering the general fuel situation. As I say, this is really a fundamental change in the law, because if this Bill is passed as it stands it will be possible for the local authority and the Government acting independently or in concert so to circumscribe the freedom of choice of the consumers that very large numbers of them will be compelled to meet the requirements of smoke control orders at their own expense. This, as has been brought home to me in personal constituency experience, could be quite considerable expense. I have at present a good many constituents who are faced with smoke control conversions which will cost about £100. If they had to pay anything like that sum personally, without any grant, the burden upon them would, obviously, be very great.
The Government's intention under the Clause, as we managed to draw it out from Ministers in Committee, is, in the first place at least—they may intend to go further later—to disqualify direct electric fires for grant purposes under the 1956 Act. I hope that hon. Members who were not on the Committee and who may not be aware of this will take due note of it. Many of them will find, when this happens, that they have complaints from constituents when smoke control orders are put into effect.
This is a considerable change in the law. Direct electric fires are only the start. Under the Clause as at present drafted, the Government can disqualify virtually every kind of appliance for the

purpose of grant. The provision is expressed in very wide terms. The Government intend to disqualify direct electric fires simply because of their policy towards the Central Electricity Generating Board. Their policy regarding block storage heaters has been such that there is now a tremendous demand for electricity which, at peak hours during the winter, cannot be met. But this is a failure of Government policy, and there is no reason why Government failure in this respect should be visited upon the unfortunate occupiers of domestic premises in smoke control areas.
For all these reasons, I do not like the Clause at all and I should be quite happy if it were dropped from the Bill. However, the purpose of the Amendments which we are now discussing is rather more limited. In Committee we mounted a broad attack on the Government's proposals, but we are now dealing with comparatively limited matters. I take, first, Amendment Nos. 169, 170 and 171. These deal with the procedure by which the local authority passes its resolution saying that certain types of appliance are not to be eligible for grant.
I am concerned to ensure that a resolution of this sort, once passed, will be taken into account by the Government, by the Minister of Housing in England or by the Secretary of State for Scotland, before an order is confirmed. I want to make absolutely sure that, in confirming an order, the Minister appreciates that the local authority has taken steps to disqualify certain appliances for grant. This is not done, so far as I can see, by subsection (2) as it now stands. It will be more nearly done if Government Amendments Nos. 169 and 170 are accepted because these Amendments place a certain time obligation on the local authority to make up its mind about disqualifying appliances before an order is actually published in accordance with the Act.
Amendment No. 171 which we have put down provides simply that a copy of the terms of the resolution shall be sent to the Minister within 21 days. This makes sure that the Minister knows about it. It may be that, if Amendments Nos. 169 and 170 are accepted, Amendment No. 171 will not be as important


as it would have been in dealing with subsection (2) as at present drafted.
My Amendment in page 95, line 38, goes a good deal further than this and proposes to eliminate subsection (2). I had an Amendment down to eliminate subsection (3) as well, but that is not to be called. I should like to table Amendments to eliminate the whole Clause bit by bit.
Even accepting the principle behind the Clause, there seems to me good reason why we should not accept subsection (2). It is rather odd. It gives certain powers to the local authority. But it is difficult to see in what circumstances these powers will be required by the local authority, because precisely the same powers are given to the Minister under subsection (3). The Minister is not only capable of designating the class of appliances as generally suitable for installation but tie is also given power to designate certain classes of appliances as being unsuitable for installation in particular areas. All the powers which the local authority will want to discharge under subsection (2) are already available to the Minister under subsection (3). It therefore seems to me that subsection (2) is not required.
If the local authority wants to disqualify certain appliances it should have to apply to the Minister and get the Minister to make the designating order. It seems to me undesirable to give two classes of power. They are both powers which are detrimental to the interests of the occupiers concerned in the sense that they restrict their freedom of choice. I am not happy about the whole Clause, but having given the power to the Minister under subsection (3)—that is a power about which he could be questioned in this House—it seems to me unnecessary also to give the power to the local authority under subsection (2).
Even if one accepted the principle of the Clause and was happy with the idea behind it in the circumstances which have led up to it, with all of which I am not satisfied, it does not seem to me necessary to have subsection (2).
I hope that the Minister will not take my Amendment in page 95, line 38 as being a wrecking Amendment. If it were possible to get a wrecking Amendment in order, I should be only too happy to do so, but it is not possible. There is a genuine argument for this Amendment as

distinct from an argument which is merely a cover for a wrecking operation. I hope that the Minister will accept the argument on my Amendment on the merits of the case; that I have been making.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Corfield: Perhaps I can conveniently refer first to the two Government Amendments and then try to answer tie comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cragton (Mr. Millan) on his Amendments.
With the Amendments proposed by the Government in page 95, line 38 and line 41, it will be obligatory on the local authority to pass the resolution in time for it to be included with the advertisement of the proposal to make the clean air order or the making of the order the local authority. This means that when the clean air order comes before the Minister, part of his function is to ensure that the procedure has been properly complied with. For instance, we always ensure that the necessary advertisements have been made. If these Amendments are passed, there will automatically be a check that not only have the advertisements been made but that, if there is a resolution, it too is made before the time that the advertisements have to be put in the Press, either the London Gazette or the Edinburgh Gazette.
I think and hope that that will meet the question I put by the hon. Member. I hope that he will still agree, as I thought he did, that this makes his second Amendment largely unnecessary, even though he still dislikes the general approach of the Clause.
I cross swords with the hon. Member from the outset on his Amendment and the principles that he enunciated. The basic principle here is that in the interests of the community it is desirable to prohibit the use of certain smoke-producing appliances and fuels. The other side of the coin is not merely that compensation is given, but that a grant is given towards the use of an appliance which is positively in the public interest. Clearly, it would be nonsense to make a grant towards the installation of an appliance which in some other way would be as damaging, perhaps, to the public interest as the original production of smoke.
The hon. Member says rather glibly that it is all the fault of the Government because certain peak electricity demands are not readily met. He knows well enough that one of the problems still awaiting the technical age is to store alternating current electricity. One is bound, therefore, to have a degree of waste if ever the peak is met. Appliances which are dependent upon electricity and which take electricity at the off-peak hours are clearly in the public interest and a matter of importance to the national economy.

Mr. Millan: It is surprising that the Government waited more than 10 years before meeting the demands to remove Purchase Tax from bulk storage heaters, which meet the requirements that the hon. Gentleman has just laid down.

Mr. Corfield: I can think of several other things on which there is Purchase Tax, but which it is desirable to buy, although not related, perhaps, to the Amendment.
The House will, I am sure, agree that it would not be sense to give a grant as positive encouragement to use a fuel which creates an embarrassment to some other part of the national economy. This is not to say that we have deprived these people of choice, as the hon. Member suggested. It is still open to them to install the ordinary bar heaters and the other types of direct electric heating if they feel inclined to do so. The difference is that they do not get the positive encouragement of a grant, because in certain areas this will not be desirable for other reasons.
It is almost self-evident that as we are making this change, which is brought about not by any failure, but by great and sudden advance in the gas industry, making it necessary to look again at the supplies of the commoner and cheaper smokeless fuels, namely, coke, to sanction a somewhat higher grant, to show a more generous attitude and to risk creating the same sort of use by encouraging people to use a fuel which, if used at peak times, might well produce difficulties, load-shedding, and so on, would be nonsense in terms.
I do not suppose that I shall carry the hon. Member with me, because he has, I know, a strong constituency

interest, but although he has through-out made constructive suggestions on the Bill his present one falls rather short of the standard which he has set. I cannot believe that he really thinks that it is right to spend public money on encouraging people to do something which, quite clearly, will be embarrassing, to say the least, to some other part of the economy. I hope, therefore, that he will not press his Amendment, though I do not say so with any great confidence.

Mr. William Hannan: The Minister seemed a little self-righteous, if I may say so, in addressing his remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) in the way he did, though he did pay him the tribute of saying that his contributions made in Committee were of a constructive character.
The theme of the Minister's speech had nothing to do with the Clean Air Act. The purpose of the Clean Air Act was to clean the atmosphere. It is so obvious that it is trite to say so. The theme of the Minister's contribution was that it would be wrong to encourage people to spend public money on replacing inefficient appliances with some other appliances which would create embarrassment to the national economy. That is the Minister's contention, but that surely was not the main purpose of the Clean Air Act.
The Minister went on to say we should not encourage the use of a fuel which would lead to load shedding. Those were his words. As I understand it, this is precisely my hon. Friend's objection to subsection (2) of the Clause. What is to determine this is the undue strain on the fuel resources, whatever those fuel resources may be. At one time it may be coal, at another time electricity.
The main purpose of the Clean Air Act was to save the nation other great costs. For example, there are many people in the North of England and in Scotland who are at this moment studying holiday brochures to see whether they can get a greater supply of sun, to make up for the sun starvation which results from smoke and the smokeladen atmosphere.
The cost to the nation in maintaining inefficient appliances is far more than


the Government have yet recognised. For example, I understand that it costs £4,000 a year more to keep Leeds Infirmary clean than it does to pay for the drugs bill. It costs £84,000 a year to keep the infirmary clean and its drugs bill is £80,000 a year.
The House may think this is a farfetched argument on this Amendment, but these were the arguments which were employed in favour of the passing of the Clean Air Bill. It is costing the nation £50 million a year in damage to textiles from the smokeladen atmosphere. Surely, therefore, the point which my hon. Friend has in seeking to assist local authorities to pay this grant to keep the atmosphere clean is of the utmost importance. It costs the nation £30 million a year to repair the damage to the painting and decorating of buildings. It costs £25 million a year in metal corrosion.
In this country pain and suffering from bronchitis is the greatest in the world. More deaths take place through bronchitis through the smoke-laden atmosphere in Britain than in any other country in the world. It is known as the English disease.
I think that my hon. Friend has raised a very important point in asking for assurances that subsection (2) of the Clause will not impair the work of the local authorities in helping their ratepayers, and those covered by the smokeless zone orders, to have some access to the instruments which would help the nation's health.

Mr. Willis: The first interesting thing about the Clause is that it is in the Bill at all. What clean air has to do with the Housing Bill, I do not know. I think that this was a very smart operation by the Minister of Power to cloak the failure of the Government to plan supplies of smokeless fuels to meet the demands arising from the Clean Air Act. From the Government point of view, this was a very desirable thing to do, their view being "We must not confess our failures. We will hide them in the Housing Bill." Goodness knows what else the Government have hidden in the Bill. No wonder the Scottish Law Report said that this was a hotch-potch of a Bill.
The second thing about the Bill and the Amendments we are discussing, particularly the subsection that we want

to delete, is that the Government have never really been very honest about all this.

Mr. William Ross: Or anything else.

Mr. Willis: We hear a very great deal from the Government about the growing shortage of gas coke and the need to do something about it, but we were never told until the Committee stage of the Bill—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) is to be thanked for this—that the Government intended to put an embargo on direct electrical heating appliances. If most people had known this, they would not have been buying direct the electrical heating appliances. This has been in mind, but we did not discover it until the Committee stage.
So, first, it is amazing that the Clause is here at all and, secondly, the Government have not been very honest about all this. Thirdly, subsection (2) places very great powers in the hands of local authorities, and, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the same powers are given to the Minister. The Government talk about freedom of choice, but this will be freedom of choice only if one is a millionaire and can afford everything. If one can pay for it, one can have what one likes, but if one happens to be a working class man, one can have only what the Government lets one have.

Mr. Corfield: indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but that is the meaning of the Clause. If I am prepared to pay £100 for a heater, I can have any heater I like. Notwithstanding the shortage of gas, coke or electricity, I can instal one. But if I am a working man, with £12 or £13 per week, and unable to afford £100 for a heater, the Government say I must not have it. If I look for a Government grant to help me, the Government say that I must not do this, that or the other and can have only what the Government say I can have.
This is the Government who make speeches on television and wireless about freedom of choice and freedom from control. The Government's propaganda is, "Do not let the Socialists in: they will control everything."


But the Conservative Government are controlling ordinary folk. Yet, if one has money, one can do what one likes.
For these reasons, we ought to look at the Government's proposals very carefully before we accept them. I would rather accept my hon. Friend's Amendment and oppose the retention of subsection (2). I have no constituency interest in this matter, but it seems that many people are involved.
9.45 p.m.
I do not intend to occupy the time of the House for long at this time of night—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."]—although, given a little encouragement, I could go on for an hour. However, I am kindly disposed towards the Government, and I like to see them get their business occasionally. We are not opposing the Bill. As a matter of fact, hon. Members opposite have filibustered on most of the Bill. All the property owners on the other side of the House have meticulously examined every part of every Clause dealing with compensation for the landowner. Incidentally, I do not see them in their places now that we are talking about heating for ordinary folk. However, I have said sufficient to show why I will support the Amendment.

Mr. M. Stewart: I rise to support the Amendment because it is important that the Parliamentary Secretary should not run away with the idea that this is a local problem of my Scottish hon. Friends. There is more to it than that. I will comment, first, as the Parliamentary Secretary did, on the general principle underlying this clean air business and the Clause and the Amendment. We start from the proposition that there are certain ways of heating a home, or factory, or whatever it is, which are undesirable because they foul the air and are no longer necessary. We lay down the proposition that those appliances should be prohibited. So far, so good, so long as there are alternative methods available.
We next consider that if we lay down that prohibition and apply it locally by the creation of smokeless zones, we impose expense, which is sometimes considerable, on a number of people who have to install different methods of heating. We say that we will give them

assistance in doing so. Again, so far so good.
We now take it a step further. The Government now say that people will not get this assistance if the particular method of heating they want to install, although it does not foul the air, is one which it is thought to be socially undesirable for some other reason. Is not this pressing planning and direction rather far? I suspect the Parliamentary Secretary of being a secret planner. I regret the absence from the debate of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I can imagine the bitter scorn which he would pour on a Government who first said that one must not have a coal fire and that that would be absolutely prohibited and then that if one wanted to substitute for it an electric fire, the Government would make that difficult financially.
Apart from these philsophic objections, there are practical difficulties. What is an undesirable appliance in the Government's view is liable to change, as the Government have themselves admitted, with progress and invention. If this power to say to people, "We will discourage you from bringing into your house this particular appliance because we consider it undesirable" is given to local authorities and the Minister, is there not a danger that that will be regarded by the Government in effect as an easy way out rather than the pursuit of research and development in industry which would remove from that particular method of heating its undesirability?
There is a danger that we may freeze invention and development into different methods of heating. At the very least I think that it will be agreed that it is a rather tricky business for the State, in effect, to say, "You are not only not to have a coal fire, but we will make it specially difficult for you if you choose some other method of heating which you may prefer". It is difficult when one is told to install an appliance without a grant. Even with the grant it is not for many people entirely easy to comply with smokeless zone orders. If the public authority wish to have this power there is a very great deal to be said for the power being wielded in a manner which is directly responsible to this House.
That is the significance of the second part of my hon. Friend's Amendment No. 171. If that Amendment were made it would be clear that whenever a local authority made an order of this kind the Minister would be responsible for the fact that it had been made, or responsible for not having taken some action, and he could be questioned in this House about it. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary satisfactorily proved that Amendment No. 171 was unnecessary. He showed us that under the Government Amendment, publicity has to be given to the making of the order, but I do not think it follows that the Minister has to regard this as a factor he must take into consideration before he confirms an order.
Nor am I at all satisfied with such answer as the Parliamentary Secretary made to my hon. Friend's other objection. Why is this power given twice over, both to the Minister who can use it for the country as a whole or for particular areas, and to local authorities each for their own area? If I understand aright, if this power is to be used at all it is to be used on grounds of general national policy. I should have thought that if the power is to be there at all it should be in the hands of the Minister alone and not in the hands of the Minister and local authorities as well.
It does not seem that the Parliamentary Secretary has answered the objections. I expect my hon. Friend will wish to press his Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Corfield: I wish to make one or two points in relation to what the hon. Member for Fulham has said. Once we give a grant to anyone we imply, or are taken to imply, that there is, so to speak, a guarantee that the fuel will be there. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is there."] If hon. Members saw some of the rather pathetic cases I have seen in my duties where local authorities have given improvement grants and then found that the houses fall within a clearance area, they would not take this matter so lightly. We have to take very seriously the psychological effect of a grant should something happen to the supplies of the appliances proved for that reason ineffective or inefficient.
The second point I make is that the hon. Member for Fulham was quite right in saying that the fuel situation changes. It changes both locally and nationally and there can be different changes in different localities. This is the answer to his question: why put this power in the hands of local authorities as well as in the hands of the Minister? Local authorities are enjoined to select the areas they are to designate as clean air areas in relation to supplies of fuel available. It may well be that they have different ideas in regard to fuels and appliances for different areas. I am certain it is right that they should be required to take these into account and where there is likely to a big demand which cannot be met they should have this power.
Thirdly, I remind the House, especially in view of the suggestion that this is prohibiting the use of a bar fire, that the vast majority of bar fire appliances sold in the shops are portable and have never been the subject of grant. The revocation by this Amendment would not be so drastic as is made out. Fourthly, I remind the House that my right hon. Friend or the Minister of the day is responsible to the House for confirming orders and, therefore, for conditions attached to them.
I should not have thought that was giving a power because it is initially in the hands of the local authority over which Parliament will have no control. If the Minister had to answer for an order which was based on one of these resolutions he would be as responsible as if he made the distinction himself in the first place. He is responsible for confirming the order, subject to any of the conditions attached to it.

Mr. Ross: Then why is subsection (2) necessary?

Mr. Corfield: That is the local authority subsection and subsection (3) is the ministerial subsection.
I have explained that the situation varies enormously from one locality to another and that it is sensible for a local authority which has to select an area to do so in relation to the fuels available. If, in view of the peak load on electricity, it is undesirable positively to encourage the use of direct electrical heating apparatus, then it is surely right for the local authority to consider this matter at the outset.

Question put, That "If" stand part of Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 120.

Division No. 73.]
AYES
[9.56 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Green, Alan
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S)
Gurden, Harold
Partridge, E.


Allason, James
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Peel, John


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Percival, Ian


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Barlow, Sir John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Barter, John
Hiley, Joseph
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Batsford, Brian
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Biffen, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pym, Francis


Bingham, R. M.
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Holland, Philip
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Hornby, R. P.
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Iremonger, T. L.
Roots, William


Braine, Bernard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
James, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jennings, J. C.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buck, Antony
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Seymour, Leslie


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Sharples, Richard


Campbell, Gordon
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Shaw, M.


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Skeet, T. H. H.


Channon, H. P. G.
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kimball, Marcus
Stainton, Keith


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kirk, Peter
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cleaver, Leonard
Kitson, Timothy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Cole, Norman
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Corfield, F. V.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Studholme, Sir Henry


Coulson, Michael
Litchfield, Capt. John
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Loveys, Walter H.
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Crawley, Aidan
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Turner, Colin


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


du Cann, Edward
Maddan, Martin
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliott, R. W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Marten, Neil
Vickers, Miss Joan


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Wade, Donald


Farr, John
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Walker, Peter


Finlay, Graeme
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Fisher, Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, William


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mills, Stratton
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Freeth, Denzil
Miscampbell, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Gammans, Lady
Morrison, John
Worsley, Marcus


Glover, Sir Douglas
Neave, Airey
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Osborn, John (Hallam)



Gower, Raymond
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant-Ferris, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. McLaren and




Mr. MacArthur.




NOES


Bacon, Miss Alice
Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Bence, Cyril
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hannan, William


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Deer, George
Harper, Joseph


Blackburn, F.
Delargy, Hugh
Hayman, F. H.


Blyton, William
Dempsey, James
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Boardman, H.
Dodds, Norman
Hilton, A. V.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Doig, Peter
Holman, Percy


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Driberg, Tom
Houghton, Douglas


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hunter, A. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Evans, Albert
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fernyhough, E.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fitch, Alan
Janner, Sir Barnett


Carmichael, Neil
Forman, J. C.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Cliffe, Michael
Galpern, Sir Myer
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Collick, Percy
Gourlay, Harry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Grey, Charles
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)




Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Oram, A. E.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Kelley, Richard
Oswald, Thomas
Small, William


Lawson, George
Parkin, B. T.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Pavitt, Laurence
Spriggs, Leslie


Lewes, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Lipton, Marcus
Pentland, Norman
Stones, William


McBride, N.
Prentice, R. E.
Swain, Thomas


MacColl, James
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Swingler, Stephen


MacDermot, Niall
Probert, Arthur
Symonds, J. B.


McLeavy, Frank
Rankin, John
Taverne, D.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Redhead, E. C.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Manuel, Archie
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Thornton, Ernest


Mapp, Charles
Rhodes, H.
Wainwright, Edwin


Mendelson, J. J.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Warbey, William


Millan, Bruce
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Whitlock, William


Milne, Edward
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mitchison, G. R.
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Ross, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mulley, Frederick
Short, Edward
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Neal, Harold
Silverman, Julius (Aston)



Oliver, G. H.
Skeffington, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


O'Malley, B. K.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Mr. Charles A. Howell and




Mr. McCann.

10.5 p.m.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Amendments made: In page 95, line 38, leave out "as soon as is practicable"—[Sir K. Joseph.]

In line 41, after "made)", insert:
and before notice of its making is first published in accordance with Schedule 1 to that Act".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Amendment proposed: In page 96, line 9. at the end, insert:
A copy of the terms of the resolution passed by a local authority under this subsection shall be sent within twenty-one days thereafter to the Minister and shall be taken into account by him in determining whether or not the order shall be confirmed."—[Mr. Millan.]

Question, That those words be there inserted in the Bill, put and negatived.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, Amendment No. 174, in page 96, line 31, after "designated" to insert:
for the purposes of this subsection".
This is a drafting Amendment which makes the wording the same as in subsection (4,b) and, therefore, makes it clearer that it is designation of the provisions of subsection (3) which is referred

to and not some separate designation by the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, Amendment No. [75, in line 45, at the end to insert:
(5) At any time after an order made by a local authority under section 11 of the said Act of 1956 has been confirmed, that authority may, if they think fit in the circumstances of any particular case, give their approval, for the purposes of the said section 12(1), to the incurring of expenditure which was incurred after the making but before the confirmation of the order, being expenditure such that, if the order had been confirmed immediately before it was incurred, they would, at the time when he approval is given under this subsection, have had power to give it under the last foregoing subsection; and where the approval of a local authority is given under this subsection as regards any expenditure, the said section 12(1) shall apply in relation to that expenditure as if that expenditure had been incurred immediately after the confirmation of the order.
This is new to the clean air procedure and it gives the local authority discretionary power to pay a grant to a householder who has incurred the expenditure after the making of the order by the local authority, but before it is confirmed. Hitherto no grant has been payable unless the expenditure has been approved after the confirmation of the order.
This Amendment will apply only if the order is subsequently confirmed. It has been represented to us by the local authority associations that this discretionary power would help them and we consider that it is reasonable that they should have it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 95.—(COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF LAND BY SCOTTISH SPECIAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION.)

Mr. Millan: >: I beg to move Amendment No. 176, in page 99, line 32, to leave out subsection (1).
This Clause deals with the compulsory purchase of land by the Scottish Special Housing Association. This matter was raised in Committee by two of my hon. Friends who, I regret, are not in their places at the moment. I hope that they will soon take their seats and contribute to the debate.
One is in some doubt why this power should be given to the Scottish Special Housing Association at all. By subsection (1), the Association will have powers for the compulsory purchase of land where the local authority is unwilling to acquire land for S.S.H.A. purposes. It was very difficult for some of us in Committee to understand why this power should be required. If I remember correctly, we were told that there might be circumstances in which the S.S.H.A. would wish to acquire land in which the local authority would have no interest at all. But the S.S.H.A. builds houses on behalf of the local authority. The houses are allocated by the local authority from the local authority's housing list, and the fact that the houses are built by the Association is of certain financial benefit to the local authority.
One therefore finds it very difficult to believe that there will be circumstances in which the local authority will not be interested in the purchase of land and the building of houses by the S.S.H.A., yet the Government seem to envisage circumstances in which, despite this very close interest, one might almost call it a vested interest, of the local authority in the purchase of the land, the local authority is unwilling to acquire it and for that reason the S.S.H.A. is given compulsory powers of acquisition.
Some of us feel that if there is a dispute between the Association and the local authority over a particular piece of land, there must be a very special reason for that dispute; and that, in particular, there must be a very special reason why the local authority is not

willing to acquire land for the purposes of the S.S.H.A. We cannot see that in such circumstances it would be just all right to give the S.S.H.A. the power to acquire land on its own behalf. The Association is very willing to serve local authorities, and one ventures no criticism of it when one says that in such circumstances the rights, feelings and views of the local authority should have priority.
I am, and always have been, a staunch supporter of the S.S.H.A., and would like to see its activities extended, but I cannot believe that in a dispute between it and the local authority about the acquisition of any land it can be right to do other than let the view of the local authority prevail. In those circumstances, I find it very difficult to see why we need this subsection, and I hope that, at the very least, the Under-Secretary will be able to clarify the issues.

Mr. G. Campbell: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) knows that I share his high opinion of the Scottish Special Housing Association. Other Scottish hon. Members opposite know that, as I know that they, too, have a high opinion of the work done by the Association.
The object of the Amendment appears to be to remove from the Bill the proposed power of the S.S.H.A. to acquire land for its normal house-building functions under previous Acts. I apprehend that there is a fear that there would be a conflict of interests between the S.S.H.A. and the local authorities; that, indeed, the Association would take land that a local authority required for its own house-building programme. I can assure hon. Members that there is no intention whatever that the S.S.H.A. should be able to over-ride a local authority or acquire land which the local authority itself genuinely required. Indeed, the Government Amendments Nos. 177 and 179 have been put down to ensure that the Association will always consult the local authority before resorting to compulsory purchase; and to give to the local authority the same rights to voice its objection and require the holding of a public inquiry as any person who has a direct interest in the land in question. In the proceed-


ings on such a compulsory purchase order the Secretary of State, of course, would take fully into account the views of the local authorities.
10.15 p.m.
The power is not being introduced to provide for a possible conflict of interest between the local authority and the Association. Its purpose is simply to relieve local authorities of a burden. It is true, as the hon. Member indicated, that houses built by the Association under Section 23(1, a) of the 1957 Act are to assist the local authority's own housing programme where the authority's own resources are inadequate. But the Association also builds for several other purposes. Under Section 23(1, b) of the 1957 Act it builds for overspill, and under subsection (1, c), which is being introduced under this Bill, the Association is to be empowered to build for incoming industrial workers. Under Section 18(1, b) of the 1962 Act it is empowered to provide housing accommodation for letting at economic rents or for joint ownership on a non-profit-making basis.
Those are examples of the Association's functions, which we visualise as increasing in future, where the local authority would be less interested in the Association's building than in the building which the Association has carried out in the past on behalf of local authorities. The houses are not being provided for people already living in the local authority's area and to that extent the local authority has much less direct interest in the housing provision than in the days when the Association built solely to assist the local authority itself. It is also the intention that the Association should do a large majority of this building in growth areas in Scotland and less building in direct support of and on behalf of local authorities. This building should not lead to a conflict of interest with the local authorities. It will be supplementary and complementary to what they are doing.
We visualise therefore this power of compulsory purchase for the Association, in addition to the compulsory purchase which is also proposed in the Clause for the Association when it is working on behalf of the Housing Corporation. We consider that this will be

helpful in Scotland and that the Association will be able to relieve local authorities of some of their work when these cases arise. They may not be frequent, but there may be occasions when the local authority does not want to go to the trouble and bother of carrying out compulsory purchase itself, because it is not itself interested and concerned in what is happening. If there should be a conflict I give an assurance that with the two Government Amendments the local authority will have every chance to express its view and to make clear that there is a conflict.

Mr. Willis: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should take the view that in its housing activities under section 23 (1) of the 1957 Act the Scottish Special Housing Association would be undertaking house building in which the local authority, as he puts it, would not be interested.

Mr. G. Campbell: I was pointing out that these were purposes in which the local authority might not be interested. There may be cases where they are, but one cannot guarantee that in all these cases the local authority will be directly interested or concerned.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman did not say that at the end of his speech. However, I shall not quibble over words. The implication that the local authority would not be interested is not sound. I do not think many local authorities would be disinterested in the activities of the Scottish Special Housing Association, for several reasons; first, because there are a number of local authorities in whose areas there is a very acute land shortage. This is the position in Edinburgh and in other local authority areas. A second reason is that the building of Scottish Special Housing Association houses in an area alongside municipal housing programmes creates a number of rather difficult problems in connection with rents and so on, and anyone who is familiar with local government knows the type of difficulties that this creates. Members of Parliament have in the past had to receive deputations arising precisely out of these difficulties.
Therefore, it seems that the local authorities will be interested in these activities even though they are not part of the general local authority housing


programme but are designed for incoming miners, for industrial needs or municipal purposes.
It is true to say that local authorities are very much concerned with these activities purely from the housing point of view. They are also concerned with them from the point of view of the use of land available within a local authority area. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of this difficult problem that has arisen in a number of local authority areas. The hon. Gentleman said that a later Amendment safeguards the position because after "satisfied" in line 2 on page 100 it is proposed to insert:
after consultation with the authority.
It would be out of order to discuss this at present because I understand it is not being taken with the Amendment that we are now discussing, but perhaps I might say in passing that those words do not mean very much.
In this subsection the Association has to satisfy itself that the authority is unwilling to acquire the land. I should have thought it was impossible for the Association to satisfy itself that the local authority is unwilling to acquire the land without some form of consultation. It is bound to consult the local authority. It will never know that the local authority does not want to purchase the land unless it does consult. In fact, its first job will be to approach the local authority and to say, "We are anxious to acquire this land. Will you take the necessary steps to acquire it and then either sell it or lease it to us?". This is the ordinary procedure that would take place, and that in itself is surely consultation. Discussions would take place between the officials of the Association and the officials of the local authority. Therefore, I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman calls Amendments which will safeguard the position will alter this subsection very much. This subsection gives another authority power to come into the local authority area and acquire land.
My hon. Friends and I have a very great regard for the Scottish Special Housing Association as most people in Scotland have. It has done a wonderful job in Scotland. Without it we would not have been able to overcome the problems with which we have been faced.

The Association has worked efficiently and competently. It is not that we are opposed to the Association, but we feel that within a local authority area bodies acquiring land for housing, such as the Scottish Special Housing Association, should do it through the local authority. The local authority ought not to have its powers nibbled into by this or any other body.
If we believe in local government—and we all pay lip-service to it—if we believe that it should be strengthened and developed, the way to do that is not by dividing its powers or giving the powers that it at present possesses to somebody else. The local authorities know the need within their areas. They are more familiar with the problems affecting the use of land within their areas, and it is important to know exactly what it is intended to do with a piece of land within a local government area. We feel that this is the right body to do it, not the Scottish Special Housing Association.
There is another point which, though, perhaps, not quite so important, is relevant here. The local authority is a democratic body responsible to the electors for what takes place. The Scottish Special Housing Association is not a democratic body in the same sense; its responsibility is expressed through the Secretary of State for Scotland. Therefore, the influence of the local people is exerted more directly through the local authority than through the S.S.H.A. For all these reasons, we feel that it ought to be left to the local authority.
The Under-Secretary of State has not given specific examples of difficulties which have arisen in this connection. I know of none. I know of a good many schemes which have been carried out by local authorities in Edinburgh, in Midlothian, part of which I have the honour to represent, and elsewhere, but I have never heard of difficulties arising over this question. When has it become difficult for the Scottish Special Housing Association to persuade a local authority that it requires land and is unable to get it?
I was going to ask whether the local authorities had expressed a view about this. The hon. Gentleman will say that they have never been consulted but nobody has protested, which is rather


different, of course. The local authorities have never been asked for their views about it. Quite a lot of them, perhaps, have not read this particular Clause or, if they have, they may not have thought it worth while saying anything about it. Feeling may not be very great. I do not know.
In order to make his case, the hon. Gentleman ought to have said that the practice which has prevailed for a very long time does not work, that difficulties have arisen, that the Scottish Special Housing Association has had a problem and it is now felt necessary to do something to help it. In face of the lack of any evidence to this effect, it is very difficult for us to accept what the Government propose.

Mr. Manuel: Scottish Members who served on the Committee have all the time tried to do what they could to enhance the reputation and powers of the local authorities. We deplore any attempt to take power from them. I was surprised to hear the Under-Secretary of State say that circumstances could arise in which houses could be built by the Scottish Special Housing Association in which the local authority itself could have little or no interest. How could this be so? Any development within the area of a local authority is bound to be the concern of the local authority.
There are repercussions from the development of a housing scheme by the S.S.H.A. or any other association and, inevitably, there must be close and harmonious working between the association and the local authority. The Scottish Special Housing Association is not in the same relationship with the area as the local authority is. After the houses are built, the local authority has to make arrangements for cleansing and all the other services to suit the particular scheme. In the preparatory work, the site preparation, connection with the main sewers, and so on, the local authority must inevitably be consulted. Above all, there will be an added rate-bearing asset to the local authority through Scottish Special Housing Association houses being built. In every case, the local authorities have worked in harmony with the Association.
10.30 p.m.
I cannot understand why, in subsection (1) of Clause 95, we envisage a situation in which the Scottish Special Housing Association, of its own volition, would need to take power compulsorily to acquire land within the area of a local authority because of a dispute with that authority. Subsection (1) refers to the Association being
satisfied that the authority are unwilling to acquire the land for that purpose or that the footing on which they are willing to do so involves the sale or leasing of the land to the Association".
If the Under-Secretary of State has proof of this situation arising, he must give the names of the local authorities and the areas wherein it has happened. I cannot see it arising. It would be bad practice to write into the Bill that an outside body could come into a local authority's area and have compulsory powers to acquire land to build houses.
The situation is governed by other circumstances. Planning powers for an area will have been exercised by the major authority, if a county council or a large burgh, in its own right. In the case of a small burgh, the county council exercises that right on behalf of the burgh. The permitted planning is already laid down for the area, comprising, say, areas for housing development, local authority development, private housing development and factory and industrial development.
If the Scottish Special Housing Association wants to build houses in the area zoned for industry and not in the area allotted to housing, does the Under-Secretary envisage that the planning authority's decision will be overturned? He must recognise that the Bill will permit something which, possibly, is quite wrong. The planning authority's recommendations for the planning of an area will have been endorsed by the Secretary of State. Certainly, there should be the greatest consultation with the local authority which has either accepted the plan for the area or has made the plan before it is overturned.
There is mother aspect concerning the need for the provision which is contained in subsection (1) of Clause 95. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) spoke of land shortage. Possibly the Government envisage a situation


where the local authority in its planning has laid out a certain area for housing development, and they envisage the local authority saying to the S.S.H.A., "This is the only acreage we have for housing development and we need this because of the comprehensive development which we have agreed upon. We need it in order to rehouse our own people who are either living in unfit houses or in grossly overcrowded conditions, or in sublet houses. "The Under-Secretary is possibly envisaging a situation where the Housing Corporation devolves its powers and responsibilities, as it can do under this Bill, to the S.S.H.A. and the Association wants to set up a housing society to build houses in the area. It can only do it for two purposes: either to get a combination of people within a society, who will build houses to sell—the houses will ultimately become the property of the people moving into them; or, alternatively, for the S.S.H.A., under the aegis of the Corporation, to build houses to let at an economic rent, a rent of between £5 and £8 a week, I work it out to be.
If the local authority is convinced that the majority of its people are low-wage earners who could not pay any such rent, or pay the weekly sums to buy off the houses over 20 or 25 years, whatever the period may be, and it needs this land to rehouse its own people by building the houses itself, getting subsidy help or rate help, to provide houses for the lower income groups, does the Under-Secretary think it would not be wrong if, over the head of the local authority, against its considered views, compulsory acquisition should be allowed, because the local authority is unwilling to acquire the land itself for the S.S.H.A.? I think it would be deplorable. Much as I admire the work which has been done in nearly every local authority area by the S.S.H.A., I think it would be quite deplorable to allow a situation to exist in which what I have instanced could happen if this unlimited power is given to the S.S.H.A. in the area of any local authority.
I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary will have second thoughts about this matter and will really study it with a view to avoiding the friction would could arise between these two bodies because of this subsection.

Mr. G. Campbell: The Amendment seeks to remove subsection (1) from the Clause, but not to remove subsection (2) under which the S.S.H.A. would retain the power of compulsory purchase on behalf of the Housing Corporation. I think it is the intention of hon. Gentleman opposite to remove the other power of compulsory purchase, powers for building functions, which are proposed in subsection (1). The hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) said that I envisaged some dispute, and asked for examples and cases.
I must make it clear that I do not envisage any dispute. That is the theme of what I am saying. I do not think there need be any dispute between the S.S.H.A. and a local authority. I agree with what hon. Members have said, that in a large number of the cases, normal cases, the local authority will be interested, and interested enough to carry out the compulsory purchase itself. It was only in explaining some cases which we visualise and explaining the word "unwilling" for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) that I went into the kind of circumstances in which we foresaw that the use of the compulsory purchase power by the S.S.H.A. itself would be helpful.
We are here talking about functions which the S.S.H.A. has only recently assumed and which it is increasingly in the future to operate. We certainly do not know of conflicts and disputes, and we sincerely hope that we shall not encounter any in the future, because we do not visualise them.
Pursuing what hon. Members have said, I can foresee situations in which under the functions which I have described the S.S.H.A. will be building houses for incoming workers or for overspill from other areas. Again, in the majority of cases the local authorities will be interested enough to carry out the compulsory purchase themselves, but in some cases they may be very busy with their own compulsory purchase and housing problems on behalf of their own residents and may not be sufficiently interested—they will, of course, be interested if people are coming to their area—in persons in these categories coming from outside to wish to carry the burden of the compulsory purchase procedure. If they are, so much to the good. Then these powers


will not be needed. But if they are not, then the local authority can feel that it will not be burdened with yet more work, because the S.S.H.A. itself will be able to carry it out.

Mr. Manuel: With regard to the case which the hon. Gentleman is instancing, surely he is aware that before overspill can take place and workers come into the area, there will be consultations between the local authorities and an overspill agreement will be made between them designating the whole thing. Therefore, the difficulty which the hon. Gentleman foresees would have been overcome already.

Mr. Campbell: Not necessarily. I said that the local authority will be interested in the people coming in, but it may not wish to be involved in the business of building houses for them, which is, after all, what the S.S.H.A. is doing on its behalf, and part of that process is the purchase of land, which may need to be carried out compulsorily.

Mr. Lawson: Is it not the case that in a subsequent Amendment the hon. Gentleman gives the local authority power to object as any person may object? Does this not suggest that he is giving the S.S.H.A. power to act in ways to which the local authority may object? Is not the whole basis of his argument that the local authorities may not want to do something or that they are leaving it to the S.S.H.A.? But, on the other hand, he is giving them power to object, which may mean that they may not wish this to be done at all?

Mr. Campbell: No. I am glad to be able to make this clear to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), who was not a member of the Standing Committee. The object was to clarify the fact that this was the position in response to requests from hon. Members opposite. It was in response to their requests that this should be spelt out that we tabled a series of Amendments. But before the matter was raised in Committee we were perfectly clear that this was the position and that this kind of conflict need not and, in our opinion, would not arise. It was to make it absolutely clear that if such a conflict arose the local authorities

would be able to object and be heard as they should be that this was written into the Bill.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire asked about planning. The position is that all the normal planning requirements would have to be observed in the usual way. I am glad to be able to set the hon. Member's mind at rest and to be able to confirm his view.
10.45 p.m.
The main objects of the S.S.H.A. are to relieve local authorities of the financial, administrative and technical burdens of house building and the proposed new power is to relieve them also of the burden of acquiring land where that has to be done compulsorily. I hope that hon. Members, whose views I have listened to—and I quite understand what has inspired them—will accept that this is not some sinister move to give the S.S.H.A. power which would immediately bring it into conflict with the local authorities, but simply something which, in the problem of housing in Scotland, may provide even more houses where they are needed, to assist the local authorities and to give the S.S.H.A. yet another function in which it can help not only local authorities, but the housing problem in Scotland generally.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 100, line 2, after "satisfied", insert:
after consultation with the authority".

In line 21, leave out "and".

In line 22, at end insert:
and as if in Part I of Schedule 1 to that Act (procedure for authorising compulsory purchases) references to an owner of any land comprised in the compulsory purchase order included references to the local authority in whose area the land is situated".—[Mr. G. Campbell.]

Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 180, in page 100, line 33, at the end to insert:
(6) In the case of land which is situated partly in the area of one local authority and partly in the area of another, references in this section to the local authority in whose area the land is situated shall be construed as references to each of those local authorities.
This Amendment is similar in effect to Amendment No. 21 and is consequential upon the group which we have just passed. The group provides that


the S.S.H.A. shall consult a local authority before resorting to compulsory purchase and that the local authority shall have the right to object to any compulsory proceedings initiated by the S.S.H.A. The new subsection makes it clear that where land is situated partly in the area of one local authority and partly in the area of another, both local authorities would have the right to be consulted or heard.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 102.—(GENERAL INTERPRETATION, AND TEMPORARY MODIFICATION AS REGARDS LONDON.)

Amendments made: In page 103, line 6, at end insert:
and 'lease' includes an underlease, sublease or any tenancy, and any agreement for a lease, underlease, sublease or tenancy, and 'lessee', 'lessor' and 'leasehold' shall be construed accordingly".

In line 26, leave out paragraph (a).

In line 29, after "authority'", insert "in section 12".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 103.—(GENERAL APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND.)

Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 185, in page 104, line 20, to leave out from the beginning to "shall" and to insert:
(e) any application to the sheriff under this Act.
This is a drafting Amendment. As it stands, Clause 103(d) deals with applications to the sheriff only in cases where there is a corresponding application to the county court in England and Wales. It does not cover the two cases of application to the sheriff under Clause 73 where the corresponding applications are to the valuation officer. The Amendment is designed to bring those two cases within the scope of Clause 103.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1.—(CONSTITUTION ETC. OF HOUSING CORPORATION.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move Amendment 186, in page 106, line 8, to leave out "they" and to insert:
the Minister and the Secretary of State so acting".

This is a drafting Amendment to meet a point made by the hon. Member for Craigton in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3.—(APPLICATION OF PART II OF ACT OF 1961 AS AMENDED TO SCOTLAND.)

Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to move Amendment 187, in page 109, line 40, at the end to insert:
and after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:
'(cc) of the roof and windows forming part of the house'".
It might be to the convenience of the House if we take with this Amendment the Amendment 190: In page 113, line 45, at end insert:
(cc) of the roof and windows forming part of the house".

Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.

Mr. Campbell: These Amendments both meet a point made in Committee by hon. Members opposite. I think they will recognise what it is and I hope they find the Amendments acceptable.

Mr. Willis: We are grateful for the Amendments. As soon as an English Bill is applied to Scotland the Scots proceed to improve it. This is one of the improvements.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to move Amendment 188, in page 110, line 48, at the end to insert:
(b) in subsection (6) (b), for the words from "the number" to "were executed" there shall be substituted the words "those works had not been executed".
It would be convenient to take with this Amendment, Amendment 191: In page 119, line 36, leave out from "if" to end of line 38 and insert:
those works had not been executed".

Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.

Mr. Campbell: I am glad to be able to say that I think in this Amendment we have been able to meet a point of drafting made by hon. Members opposite from Scottish constituencies. I hope I can commend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to move Amendment 189, in page 111, line 4, at the end to insert:
(b) in subsection (9)(c), after the word "names", there shall be inserted the words "ages and sex", and after the words "individuals and", there shall be inserted the words "the names of".
As occurred last Saturday, I think we can call this a hat trick, because, for the third time, Scottish hon. Members opposite have succeeded with a suggestion which we have been able to incorporate in the Bill. I suggest that with this Amendment we could consider Amendments 194 and 195: in page 121, line 50, after "names", insert "ages and sex".

In page 121, line 50, after "and", insert "the names".

Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 113, line 45, at end insert:
(cc) of the roof and windows forming part of the house.—[Mr. G. Campbell.]

Mr. Cole: I do not know if there is a special Scottish mystique about this. I notice the peculiar mnemonic"(cc),"whereas we usually use the letters a, b, c, and so on. Is this a printing error, or something I do not understand?

Mr. Campbell: This is a device used in the printing of Amendments to Bills at this stage. I cannot claim any special Scottish significance for it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 119, line 36, leave out from "if" to end of line 38 and insert:
those works had not been executed".—[Mr. G. Campbell.]

Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to move Amendment 192, in page 120, line 33, at the end to insert:
(6) Subsections (4) and (5) of section 23 of this Act shall apply in relation to an offence punishable under this section.
This is consequential on the Government Amendment to Clause 61, page 66, lines 7 to 10 which has already been accepted. It simply carries it through to the provision as reproduced for Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 120, line 51, at end insert:
In this subsection the reference to the occupier for the time being of the house shall include a reference to any person who is for the time being entitled or authorised to permit individuals to take up residence in the house or in part of the house.

In page 121, line 50, after "names" insert, "ages and sex".

In line 50, after "and", insert "the names".—[Mr. G. Campbell.]

Schedule 4.—(CONSEQUENCE OF CESSATION OF CONTROL ORDER.)

Amendment made: In page 128, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (3).—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Schedule 5.—(REPEALS.)

Amendment made: In page 129, line 54, column 3, at end insert:
Section 30(2).—[Mr. Corfield.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

10.57 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Hon. Members may dispute the exact timing, but I reckon that this brings us into our 96th hour of consideration of this Measure. I should like to pay a heartfelt and sincere tribute to the work of hon. Members of the Committee who laboured so long and, I think, effectively, upstairs. As one who was fortunate enough to have advice, I was genuinely impressed by the hard work, the home work and the constructive efforts which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee contributed. I am sure that the Bill has been improved by their efforts.
I should like particularly to pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Parliamentary Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who have borne so much of the burden and have borne it, I think the House will acknowledge, with courtesy and lucidity. At this stage, too, the House would like to remember for a moment our late colleague, Mr. Brooman-White, who started the Bill with us.
At this stage of the night the House will not expect me to be long, but I want to summarise what has happened since


the Bill was introduced. Part I deals with housing societies and proposes to set up a Housing Corporation with money from the Treasury and, we hope, with the support which the Building Societies Association has recommended its societies to offer. The House accepted Part I as making a useful, a growing, a significant, but not numerically a vast, contribution to the housing needs of the country. There was need to reassure hon. Members opposite—and I think that they were reassured—that there was intended no sort of competition with local authorities. Subject to that—and I think that the reassurance was accepted—Part I was generally welcomed. It will enable the Housing Corporation to build on the pilot scheme under which some 5,000 dwellings throughout the country are either in building or in design, and it will enable housing societies to provide houses for rent and for co-ownership without profit and without subsidy. It is the belief of the Government that these houses will provide excellent value for many people and will fill the gap between private enterprise building for owner occupation and public enterprise building for letting.
Parts II and III of the Bill deal with the large subject of improvement grants. The whole House accepts the need to improve that part of our housing stock that is solid enough to justify modernisation. None of us would do it if we had an alternative. It would be far better to replace the houses which are not modern, but faced as we are as a community with the need to overtake shortage at once, keep pace with growth, replace the slums and, once the slums are down, to replace those houses which cannot be improved, we must accept the need to use the improvement system to make life more tolerable for the large numbers of our fellow citizens who will have to live in these houses for some years.
I believe that all hon. Members accept the need to move from the relatively unsystematic procedure with improvement grants that we now have to a more systematic course of conduct. That is what the Bill makes possible. We all accept that it makes sense to seek to concentrate the improvement efforts of local authorities systematically, area by area through their towns,

and to couple with the improvement of individual houses the improvement of the environment in which those houses are set. That, too, is what the Bill sets out to make possible.
There is also general acceptance that it is right to use a combination of persuasion, persuasion and persuasion—but that when persuasion fails, compulsion. There is general acceptance, also, that the compulsion should not bite on owner occupiers, although we hope that owner occupiers who have not already used the improvement grant scheme will be more encouraged to do so when they find that the areas in which they live are being systematically improved by local authorities.
I have spoken so far about what has been generally agreed. Some changes were made in Committee, and others suggested but not made.
The whole Committee agreed that it was right to allow the tenant to have some option about whether improvements should take place in the house in which he resides, but there was some disagreement as to the proper period of time for which a tenant should be entitled to hold up the improvements. When the Government introduced the Bill the tenant was allowed to defer the improvement works for 10 years. After some discussion the Government introduced an Amendment, which was generally accepted, to reduce that option to five years. That is how the Bill is now drafted.
There was some disagreement on the priorities about improvement grants. Hon. Members opposite urged that improvement grants should be made available for property with a life of 10 years or more, as opposed to the present situation where they are available only for property with a life of 15 years or more. An argument of balance centred around this point. The Government believe that this provision makes sense only when our limited management and craft resources are concentrated on houses with the longest life. If we had the resources to do everything at once we would indeed do everything at once, but since we do not have those resources it seems more sensible to direct our effort to those areas where there are the most houses with 15 years at least ahead of them, rather than in areas where most


of the houses have only 10 years further life ahead.
There are other arguments that could be related on this and allied points, but at this late hour I will only comment on the main strands of the arguments adduced.
There was disagreement about the ultimate sanction that should be necessary if a landlord fails where compulsion is directed at him to carry out improvements. The Government feel that the Bill has adequate sanction. The Opposition wanted in those cases to require the local authority to acquire the house concerned. But, those disagreements being stated, there was, I think, general agreement about the purpose the Government have in mind and about the broad strategy that is being adopted. I think I may hope on behalf of the whole House that this will enable us to accelerate the speed of improvement, from 120,000 to 125,000 houses a year now towards the 200,000-a-year that the Government have set.
Part IV deals with multi-occupation. Multi-occupation is not, in itself, an evil in present circumstances; the lodging-house serves a useful purpose, albeit sometimes very dingy. The evil comes from the exploiters who take advantage of the shortage, and also from the pressure of demand that forces some people, many of them immigrants, people who have very little choice about what shelter they can get and what they have to pay for it, to accept whatever lodging may be available.
The Bill was introduced against a background of the powers given under the 1961 Act by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary to local authorities to enable them to require better management, to reduce overcrowding and to have works done to multi-occupied houses. My right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary, when introducing that Bill, undertook that a review would be made two years after the Measure came into effect. In fact, because of the notorious incidents brought to light last summer, the review that would have taken place this year was brought forward to last year, and the results of that interim review are in Part IV.
Briefly, they provide for a charge upon any property where the local authority has, in default of the owner's work, had to carry out work under the 1961 Act. They impose a sanction in some cases. They provide better powers of entry. Above all, they give to local authorities a power by way of control order, to enter summarily into stewardship of any multi-occupied property where the living conditions and general conditions are such that the local authority needs to intervene to protect the safety, welfare and health of the tenants. This is a summary power of intervention by the local authority, with the legal rights of appeal that are necessary in a free society coming later.
This control-order power and the general strengthening of the 1961 Act powers were also welcomed on both sides of the House, but two major issues arose in the Committee. The first arose from the workings of the 1961 Act powers. It emerged that the use of these powers had led in some cases to some evictions, and to meet the danger to tenants the Government were urged to apply the control-order powers to such cases.
The Government felt, however, that the use of the compulsory-purchase-order procedure to protect tenants from homelessness in such cases was more apt, and in the light of arguments put forward by hon. Members opposite the Government introduced a new Clause to give tenants some security of tenure during the processing of a compulsory purchase order. In the light of the further discussion of that new Clause, I undertook during Report to discuss with local authorities the use of the compulsory purchase order power when the 1961 Act weapons threaten homelessness to some or all of the tenants.
The second big issue that arose during discussion of Part IV was when hon. Members opposite sought to extend the use of control orders to cover cases of intimidation and general eviction regardless of the condition of the multi-occupied property in which the people were living. Here, again, the Government view was put that this drastic control-order power should be limited to cases where its need could be objectively shown; and that there were other powers and defences for tenants threatened with eviction either by intimidation or by other improper means.
It is common ground on both sides of the House that no protection written into a statute or available from a local authority to the community is any use unless the tenant at least triggers off the protection that is available to him. In such a situation the tenant has common law rights and statutory rights. He will have much stronger rights under statute once the Bill is passed. Part IV, which exists because we had the 1964 review one year earlier, does not mean that the Government now propose to leave the 1961 Act powers unexamined. I now give warning that we shall propose that there shall be a further review of the working of the 1961 Act next year.
I have been briefly through the Bill as changed in Committee. Though we have had some sharp disagreements on limited issues I think that the whole House will hope that the effort that has gone into the Bill will bear fruit. Some of the ideas in the Bill go back to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Some go back to my predecessor the noble Lord, Lord Hill.
Great effort will be required to make the Bill effective. Effort will be required by the Housing Corporation when we set it up. I hope that energies will be released by individuals throughout the country who under the wing of the Housing Corporation form themselves into housing societies, either for cost rent or co-ownership. Effort will be required by the authorities, from staff, from landlords and owner-occupiers in the improvement grant procedure. Effort, sadly I fear, will also be required by the local authorities and their staffs in dealing with some of the cases of multi-occupation which will now be dealt with by control order.
Although, as I have said, we have had sharp disagreement on individual issues, the whole House will hope that the energies released and the efforts required will do much that is healthy and helpful for the housing of our people.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I pay tribute to the Minister and his lieutenants for the tremendous work which they must have put in to enable the Bill to be before the House. I was not a member of the Standing

Committee on the Bill and, therefore, perhaps I may pay tribute also to hon. Members from both sides of the House who contributed so much in Committee to the Bill which is now being read the Third time. I should also like to pay tribute to the staff of the Ministry who must have been engaged for a long period in preparing the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman has spoken for only about 15 minutes in summarising the Bill. It has over 100 Clauses as well as Schedules and it deals very comprehensively with a large number of issues—the housing societies, the improvement of dwellings, the multi-occupation and many other features. Although we should have liked to have made certain Amendments, I am sure that at the end of these discussions all hon. Members welcome the fact that we now have this Bill. At the same time we must say, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman recognises, that the Bill deals with only a fraction of the appalling housing problem which many of us feel is the greatest social evil in our society at the present time.
I want to refer to two matters in particular which are in this Bill. The first is this question of dwellings in multiple occupation. I do not want to approach it in a parochial way, but we must speak mainly from our own experience and I expect that the experience of my constituency in Slough is typical of other areas. The right hon. Gentleman has indicated that this is particularly a problem of Commonwealth immigrants. It is not only that, but he is perfectly correct in saying that the problem of multiple dwellings which faces us today in the areas of housing shortage is largely that of Commonwealth immigrants.
The dwellings in multiple occupation take two forms. One of them is, in my view, a commendable form, where people with very few resources, with the terribly high cost of buying houses for accommodation, pool their resources and in effect become a co-operative community in that dwelling; but because housing conditions in the countries from which they come have been much lower than our standards and because of the very high cost of the purchase of their dwellings, they live in overcrowded conditions and in conditions which mean that standards of hygiene recognised here are frequently not observed. Nevertheless, I think we


should recognise that there is a real cooperative effort by men and their families to try to make the best of the conditions in which they live in areas of housing shortage.
The other type of house in which Commonwealth immigrants live is that which is owned either by private landlords or by property companies. In Slough many of these multiple dwellings are owned by property companies which have their headquarters in the City of London or they are owned by individual landlords. The exploitation of the immigrants who live in these multiple dwellings is just outrageous. I welcome the fact that under this Bill there will be increased opportunities for the local authorities to look at this appalling exploitation by property companies and private landlords of dwellings in multiple occupation. I hope that the new provisions which have been made in this Bill will allow us to deal with that scandal in a way in which it has not been dealt with before.
The other part of this Bill to which I want particularly to refer, and which again I welcome, is that dealing with housing associations. I suppose a number of Members of this House have been to Scandinavian countries, where they will have seen what co-operative housing associations have done in the way of housing their people and dealing with the problem of housing shortage. I should very much like to see the Scandinavian experiments extended to this country. Democracy is not a matter of central Government. It is not only a matter of local government. It is also a matter of voluntary associations of people with a common purpose. The housing associations which will be encouraged under the Bill should contribute considerably to the solution of our problems.
But the Minister himself wilt recognise that the proposals in the Bill for housing associations do not overcome certain obstacles. After correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman dealing particularly with the shortage of houses in Slough, I went, with his encouragement, to meet the secretary of the National Federation of Housing Societies. The good work being done by the Federation and by the associations was perfectly obvious to me

from that meeting. But the right hon. Gentleman had to admit that, in the conditions at Slough, which are typical of many other areas, housing associations can make very little contribution. They can make little contribution because they encounter two obstructions which seem to be insurmountable and which only by the enthusiastic dedication of people can be overcome in some circumstances.
The two obstructions are these. First, there is the limited amount of land. Slough, like many other places in the South of England, is comparatively prosperous and workers are pouring in. There is no accommodation for them. Happily, the town is surrounded by the green belt, but this, too, limits the amount of land available. I hope that the beauties of Black Park, of the banks of the River Thames and of Burnham Beeches are to be retained. But in circumstances such as these, with prosperous industry, the population leaping, workers pouring in, and only limited land for further construction, the restriction on what a housing association can do is obvious. In Slough we have now only 90 acres on which we can build for our crowding population.
The other limitation on the effectiveness of the housing association proposals is the cost of land. Housing associations cannot possibly bear the increase in the price of land which has taken place in the last few years. In Slough, the value of land risen five times within a period of four years. I have told the House before of how the council was compelled to buy land in our high street last year at the rate of £1 million an acre and at the rate of £2 million an acre this year. That land will mainly be used for business premises and for shops, but one hopes that above the shops there will be flats to let. But consider the cost for the construction of the flats when such a price has to be paid for the land.
I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a particular matter because it comes under the Clauses of the Bill dealing with housing associations. We have in Slough a quite heroic effort to develop a housing association. It is called the Slough Self-Building Group, and it is composed of men who are prepared to build their own houses. Among them are carpenters, bricklayers, plumbers, decorators, and electricians who


are able to do all the jobs. They have gone to the local authority, and the local authority has encouraged them. It has said that if land can be found for the development of this self-reliant housing association it will provide the facilities. These men want to build 24 houses—just that limited number—and they will require two acres of land if the houses are terraced, or three acres if the houses are semi-detached. Yet, in a town like Slough, with its great need of land, the council says that it cannot find three or two acres of land to enable these people to put through their plan.
I want, in welcoming this Bill, to say to the Minister that while it will ameliorate certain conditions of our present housing shortage, we shall never be able to face this problem so long as we have the accumulation in land values which is taking place. Until a housing programme is begun on a basis such as we have not yet conceived we shall not overcome the worst social evil in this country.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Cole: I should like to add my mede of praise for this Bill, but first I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on all the work he has done, not only in public but behind the scenes. As I said to one of my hon. Friends this evening, this has been manifest throughout. My right hon. Friend has also stuck to his guns—a quality which we can all admire. He has been persuasive and eloquent, and that persuasion has led a number of us on both sides to accept that his view has often been right.
A Bill of this size—no fewer than 129 pages and, as the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) has said, more than a hundred Clauses—has necessarily meant that much work has fallen on the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary was an old campaigner before he came to the Government, and he, too, has shouldered his task manfully. I should like also to add my appreciation of what has been said about our departed colleague who occupied the office of Under-Secretary of State for Scotland before his untimely death. The present holder of that position might be said to have had his baptism of fire with this Bill—all 129 pages of it. He

has withstood the words and actions of his colleagues in his own country, if not in his own party, and in so doing one must offer some little admiration. I congratulate him in having gone in at the deep end and on swimming so well and satisfactorily.
We have spent quite an amount of time on this Bill, but except for some sections of the public it will not become very well known. I doubt whether many people, apart from those who will have to know about it, will know about the Bill and what it contains. It is a heterogeneous sort of Bill. It has pieces of everything, but all the everything is important, even when it is aluminium houses. Nevertheless, for that reason it is all the more valuable.
This might be an appropriate moment to put on record the debt which we owe to the local authorities, all 1,500 of them, who will have to implement the Bill, because without their disinterestedness, keenness and enthusiasm we would be wasting our time. We are passing legislation which will place more work upon them because we have the joint idea, with them, of improving the housing conditions of so many people.
It must be done this way. I had the dubious privilege of being introduced to London slums the best part of 40 years ago, an experience of my youth which I have never forgotten. We are still dealing with the same kind of problem, but its quantity is much less. Now, however, we have become much more detailed in the way we go at things. We do not simply clear slums, but we try to improve other parts and altogether to increase the quality of our housing. That is the only way it can be done. My right hon. Friend the Minister said that if we had started overnight from the beginning, we should not have started this way; but that is not possible and it must be done in the way we are doing it. We shall put much work upon the shoulders of the local authorities. I am sure that they will carry it out well and that they, like us, will take pleasure in seeing the improvement which is taking place in the quality of the housing of our people.
Already my right hon. Friend has given the House notice that this is only one more milestone upon the way. I guess that before the termination of the


next Parliament, we shall have another Bill of this kind, although, perhaps, not quite as long. That will be inevitable. The last such Measure was in 1961, three years ago. This is no reflection upon anybody, least of all upon the various Ministries, who have worked so manfully and well to provide my right hon. Friend with all his ammunition for the Bill, on the Government or on anybody. It is merely a reflection by mirror of the changing times in which we live.
The problems which we have today, in 1964, will not necessarily be the same in 1967 or 1968. Other problems will make their appearance. Some of our existing problems will have taken on a different aspect. There will be movement of population and all that goes with it. Even the immigration problem, to which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough referred, was not present so much five years ago as it is today.
At this stage, we have this large Bill and we shall need another. In the meantime we must implement this one and, as my right hon. Friend has said, increase the working of the 1961 Act, where necessary by review. And so we move on to our goal, to the far distant horizon when we shall have a stock of 20 or 30 million reasonably up-to-date houses, a state of affairs which at one time I did not think many people alive today would ever see. I am, however, becoming more optimistic, which is different from one or two hon. Members opposite, who hold their views equally sincerely.
The time is coming when, with Bills of this kind, and with good will and intention and determination by local authorities and people, our housing will become better. That will bring within the reach of some of us who are alive today the prospect of seeing a great change towards the millennium in housing. I have seen tremendous changes since the time of which I have spoken 40 years ago. One can only hope that the pace will be accelerated with modern techniques and that we shall have far more progress and better conditions in the future.
I do not envy the other place in starting with the Bill in its legislative adventure, but I hope that it will have a speedy passage there and that we will have little

to say when it becomes back later with any changes. Again, I voice my congratulations to all concerned, including, probably, all of us in this House for the way we have lived with the Bill. I wish it well, and I am certain that my right hon. Friend is pleased that it is now passing to another place.

11.35 p.m

Mr. M. Stewart: We are now nearing the end of this formidable task, and I should like to pay tribute to the help I have received from many of my hon. Friends during these long hours. I have in mind particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and his enormous diligence and his legal knowledge, which was so important at certain stages of the Bill. Of course, there were parts of the Bill where I had to lean very heavily indeed on my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), who was, in effect, our Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on our side. I see here two of my hon. Friends who were with us in Committee, and I was, of course, very grateful indeed for the special knowledge of local government which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) possesses; and my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) was able to bring to bear on the Bill his special knowledge of some of the uglier sides of landlordism which he has particularly made his own field.
It was a formidable task, partly because it was a United Kingdom Bill; and I will say at once that I do not think it is a good thing to have United Kingdom Bills for housing. This was a rush job. I am not at all sure that trying to jam English and Scottish housing legislation into one Bill is not a case of more haste less speed. It makes the wording of the Bill more cumbrous; it means setting out the bits which apply to Scotland and which do not, and how those are to be adapted. What some of the officials who have to interpret it will make of it all I cannot imagine, taking, for instance, something like this truly appalling Schedule 3, which took us so much time.
The effect is liable to be demoralising on the Government back benchers in Committee. The Government, of course, hoped that they would get the Scottish parts considered quicker by not


putting any Scottish back benchers on their side on the Committee. It was a vain hope, of course. My hon. Friends from Scotland on our side of the Committee saw to that. For after all, what happened? It meant that during certain Scottish passages of the Bill the Under-Secretary, who, I must say, did very well, so far as an Englishman can judge, and my hon. Friends from Scottish constituencies all performed with great expertise while the Minister, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole), the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and my English hon. Friends all looked on in admiration, and all the remainder of the Government's back benchers got on with their correspondence or writing their articles for The Times or whatever it was in which they were engaged. However, I think, quite seriously, that where there is different local government, different law for England and Scotland, it is not a good thing to have United Kingdom Bills but better to have a separate Scottish Bill and to allow the Scottish Grand Committee really to get down to it.
I am willing, too, to pay tribute to the Minister for being very patient and very willing to try to meet our points of view on everything which was not really important. On quite a number of minor matters he did accept Amendments, and I believe that the Bill is better for them.
The points on which we disagreed all sprang from what is the main theme of this Bill. I do not think that on the Government side the real significance of this Bill was grasped, because the central theme of this Bill is the complete unsuitability of profit-making private enterprise as the way of dealing with the housing problem. That runs all through the Bill. One part of the Bill is engaged in trying to provide substitutes for profit-making private enterprise as the way of providing houses. That is what the first part of the Bill is concerned with. The middle of the Bill is concerned with substituting private enterprise or substituting public enterprise for it in order to get property improved and kept in decent condition. The end of the Bill is concerned with

clearing up the messes created by profit-making private enterprise in housing.
It is significant that we should have introduced by a Conservative Government a Bill whose whole theme is the failure of profit-making private enterprise in housing. Do not let us imagine that this failure—it is a failure—can be attributed, as some hon. Members opposite would like to attribute it, to the operation of rent control. There were appalling evils of slumdom, landlordism and tyranny long before rent control ever appeared in this country.
Moreover, the nation has already admitted as a matter of policy that one cannot rely on the operations of the market alone, even in owner-occupied housing. Our taxation is so arranged as, in effect, to subsidise the owner-occupier. We admit that if we did not provide an indirect subsidy of that kind we should not get the owner-occupier's problem satisfactorily solved.
What we are being driven to realise also, and what we know, is that we must have in rented housing a large subsidies element provided by the local authorities. What has remained so far unsubsidised is that section of rented housing provided by profit-making private enterprise. The Bill is an admission that it will not work, that we have to provide all kinds of props for the profit-making private enterprise or substitutes for it.
Let us see how the Bill does that. In Part I it is concerned with the housing societies. The whole point of them is that they are an attempt to meet the provision of rented housing by an appeal, in effect, to philanthropy. It is none the worse for that. But the whole assumption of these societies is that there will be enough people willing to do the administrative work without doing it for profit. I believe that there are people who will do that. As the Minister said, it will not make, quantitatively, all that contribution to the solution of the housing problem, but it will provide a very useful slice in the whole structure of housing. I for one particularly hope that that type of housing society which is concerned with co-ownership of houses will take advantage of the provisions of the Bill and flourish under it.
That is what Part I is concerned with—in effect, philanthropy as a substitute


for profit-making private enterprise in housing.
Parts II and III are concerned with subsidy to private enterprise—that is what improvement grants, in fact, are—or, where subsidy fails, with bringing in public enterprise as a substitute for profit-making private enterprise in housing. It is interesting to notice how in one housing Bill after another Governments are obliged to advance further along this road to either subsidy or a stepping in of public enterprise.
The effect of the Bill is to make the arrangements for subsidy—that is, for improvement grant—both somewhat more generous and—this is important—more flexible. I think that the Bill has done a useful job in that direction and has profited from the nation's experience so far in the working of improvement grants.
There remains the fact that there will come a point at which persuasion will not do the whole job and where, in effect, public enterprise has to do what private enterprise will not do. The right hon. Gentleman's own city of Leeds, as we pointed out in Committee, has shown what can be done in that direction, both in persuasion and public enterprise. It was its view, as it was ours in Committee, that the better type of legislation would have been legislation to make it easier and more certain for local authorities to proceed as Leeds is trying to proceed. It has some fears, which I share, that the procedure provided by the Bill may be a good deal more cumbrous than what Leeds is trying to do. We shall have to see how it works out.
Then we come to Part IV, the scavenging part. We have become so used to using the word "Rachmanism" that, apparently, we almost take it for granted that this sort of thing will go on. However, I invite the House to look at it this way: periodically the House debates the reports and performances of the nationalised industries; if any nationalised industry had come before the nation with this record of squalor, tyranny, injustice and disregard for ordinary human rights, there would have been the most appalling uproar in the country and the Press that we have ever heard. What has been in the dock throughout the whole of the discussion of this Bill has been the

scandalous failure of private enterprise in a major respect.
It may be said that this is not a typical landlord; but let it be quite clear that it is not our policy and it is not our theory and philosophy on housing which stand in the dock, but private enterprise with a great many stains to clear off its name. We felt that Part IV could have gone much further and we are still of the view that the mechanism of control orders could have been developed to deal with intimidation, although I believe that a better way to deal without would have been by specific legislation, listing, as we tried to list in a new Clause considered to be outside the scope of the Bill, the particular evils which spring from this kind of landlordism, and that the matter could have been remedied by adopting the principle of a Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North of no eviction without a court order and making that clearly known to be the law everywhere. Once that was so, the appearance in a street of nefarious persons trying to turn people out of their houses would immediately rally all the neighbours against them. At present, when people of that kind turn up, nobody is quite sure which side the law is on. We want to get that clear from the start.
It was because we could not do that within the scope of the Bill that we tried to do what we could to widen the circumstances in which control orders could be provided. We repeat that what makes this abuse possible is the creeping decontrol provisions of the Rent Act, and there is no getting away from that. The effect of those provisions is that to get out his tenant of controlled property pays the landlord enormously.
There is only one logical answer to be made to that and some bolder hon. Members opposite have sometimes made it. They hive said that it is not decontrol which is the trouble, but having any control, because if rent control were abolished altogether, the landlord would not need to intimidate his tenants and could get them out by due process of law. It is not open to the Government now to use that argument, because they themselves admitted that they dare not extend decontrol in that manner. They are only too late to proceed by efflux of time. That means that this situation in


which it pays to be an intimidating landlord continues. That was why we felt that the provisions of Part IV of the Bill should be stronger.
Having been somewhat acid to the Minister, I will at least congratulate him on having gone further possibly than any other prominent figure in his party would have dared to go in curbing this. He no doubt is one of the modernisers in his party, I do not doubt that he has gone thus far with certain pullings and strains against him, but shrewdly and skilfully he took advantage of the outburst of public opinion against bad landlords to haul some of the savages in his party further than they otherwise could be hauled. For that achievement we are very willing to congratulate him. That is the real nature of this Bill. We shall be glad to see it on the Statute Book, but I think it important for the nation to realise the real implications of a Measure of this kind.

11.52 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I speak again by leave of the House. In view of the nature of the last remarks of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) I think I should make a short rejoinder. First, I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for his constructive part in the proceedings on this Bill.
I say to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) that he made a speech which contained its own internal contradiction. He spoke feelingly and rightly of the shortage of land, and he also spoke feelingly and rightly of the importance of maintaining the green belt. This must mean that the only hope for Slough and the people of Slough, just as the only hope for the people in South-East England and those to be born there, is by a planned dis-

persal of homes and jobs such as is indicated by the South-East Study.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) for the kind things he said.
I say only this about what the hon. Member for Fulham said. I should not like it to be thought that the Government accepted for one moment that private enterprise in housing can be judged in the easy way in which he disposed of it. Here is a group—of not even entrepreneurs, of owners, not even economic men and women in the sense of working to an economic calculus—invaded suddenly by a violently accelerated rate of newcomers, often from abroad, and offering them homes, sometimes humanely, sometimes indifferently, sometimes barbarously. This same enterprise of providing homes for the people cannot be judged at a time when we set a limit on the land which is available—and rightly—for our green belt policy; when we set a limit upon the rent which can be charged by the expectation that subsidised rents create; and when there is such a constant stream of odium directed from the Opposition benches on anyone who is a landlord, be he good or be he bad.
Therefore, although I am anxious to keep the temperature of this debate naturally quiet, I must answer the hon. Member for Fulham lest he thinks his case goes by default. But I remain extremely grateful for the co-operation that both sides of the House have shown in working realistically and, in the light of each of them, constructively, on this Bill. I hope that the House will now find it acceptable.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ROAD HAULAGE (LICENSING AUTHORITIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: Some time ago I attended a court of inquiry which was sitting in a building in Soho Square, London. The president of the court sat like a judge in his high seat, with his clerk below him. There was a place for witnesses and a bench of solicitors and barristers. The rest of the room was occupied by members of the general public. At least, that is what I thought at the beginning. I discovered afterwards that there was only one member of the general public there—that is, one person there merely for the purpose of listening—and that was me. All the others were witnesses—about 50 of them.
What was it all about? This court was a licensing authority for road haulage. It had been convened to listen to the applications of a firm which asked permission to use five or six vehicles to transport bulk liquid to various parts of the country. One would imagine that this was rather a simple issue, but it turned out to be far from simple. The hearing lasted three days and, after an interval of several weeks, judgment was given and all the applications were refused. Whether the applications were refused is not part of my case tonight.
I am passing no verdict on the decision of the licensing authority. It is the general procedure with which I am concerned. There were many witnesses. Some of them were in favour of the applications. These were representatives of nationally known firms who were potential customers of the applicant; they wanted their goods to be carried in his vehicles. They came to the court to say so and to give their reasons why they wanted their goods to be carried in these vehicles. There were other witnesses, who objected, and their objection was based mainly on the contention that there were already enough of these vehicles in the country and that to give extra licences would be to exceed the need for these licences. I was surprised and vaguely disturbed by what I heard and saw at this hearing. I was not there all the three days, but I was there

for most of the first day. I thought that I would try to find out a little more about the procedure. I discovered in the first place that all of the objectors were engaged in this road haulage business. They were very much engaged in it. One might almost say that there was nobody else in this road haulage business but them. These people who objected all belonged to a comparatively small group of firms—seven or eight—who between them had about 80 per cent. of all these licences.
In other words, this small group of firms control about 80 per cent. of the road haulage in Great Britain. The firms in question are: Bulwark Transport Ltd., Crow Carrying Co., Davis Bros., Harold Wood and Sons, Smith and Robinson, Thomas Allen, and Tyburn Road Services; and sometimes they are joined by Pickfords (British Road Services).
I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this group of firms, whenever an application for a licence is made by some firm, usually a small one. outside the group, act together as an organised opposition. They act as a cartel. They immediately engage lawyers. They are extremely wealthy, because these eight firms control scores of other firms in the business. But I have given the names of the main firms concerned. They act as a unified opposition. They engage lawyers and send in their witnesses, who travel all over the country to the various licensing authorities, of which there are 11. Always the same objectors appear before the court. They might almost be described as professional objectors. In the case to which I listened in London, some of the objectors had travelled from as far as the north of England and Scotland.
These firms control about 80 per cent. of the road haulage business—and they intend to keep it that way. Sometimes, however, they do not object; and this is when one of their own members makes an application. Then they adopt a different procedure. They send out to anyone who objects what is known as a withdrawal form—for the withdrawal of objections—which is neatly made out requiring only the signature of the objector. They ask the objector to sign the document in duplicate, one copy for the licensing authority and one for the Road Haulage Association, which this group of firms dominates.
It might be asked why Parliament should interfere. If firms want to fight among themselves about business, should we be surprised? Personally, I have always recognised that big business is like a jungle. What has this got to do with Parliament? It might even be suggested that if this could be proved—and I believe that it can—it would seem that the small firms are being bullied by the big ones. This is what this has to do with Parliament. There is a tendency for this cartel to become almost a monopoly. The firms in question can get together and rig the prices they will charge to carry other people's goods. What interests Parliament even more is this. These licensing tribunals have been set up by Parliament, are partly financed by Parliament, and I submit that they facilitate, and in part finance, the bullying of the small firms by the larger ones.
I said that there are 11 licensing tribunals or authorities. They sit in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Manchester, Nottingham, Cardiff Eastbourne, Edinburgh, Leeds, Birmingham, Cambridge, Bristol and London. To run them—their offices and so on—must be a costly business, I thought some time ago, so I tabled a Question to the Minister of Transport last month and received this written reply:
There is no net cost. The total administrative costs of the licensing authorities, including associated costs of enforcement, were £940,000 in 1962–63, but this was offset by revenue of like amount from fees charged for carriers' licences".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1964; Vol. 690, c. 225.]
I am still not clear about the exact meaning of that reply. To be honest, I am in a complete fog over it and I would be grateful if it would be further explained tonight. Does it mean that the Ministry spends £940,000 on these 11 licensing authorities and that the £940,000 is offset by the fees charged to carriers for their licences? If so, does it not mean that the carriers' fees are used to set up the licensing authorities, at the sittings of which these carriers appear to decide who shall and who shall not become carriers? We have a public responsibility in this matter.
Why have I raised this subject tonight? I have not the slightest financial interest in road haulage of any sort, and I do not claim to have any special know-

ledge of road haulage. My object is to bring this matter to the attention of the public. Very few people know anything about it; apart from Ministry officials, lawyers who specialise in this type of business and road hauliers, hardly anyone has ever heard about it.
I cannot pretend to have any readymade remedies, but a remedy is badly needed. Perhaps the activities of this cartel of road hauliers might be referred to the Monopolies Commission or to the Restrictive Practices Court. Most certainly, and more urgently, the cartel should be carefully examined by the Geddes Committee, which is still sitting and whose report we await with so much interest. That Committee cannot remain silent on this subject.
What the ideal long-term solution is, one cannot be certain. One imagines that a person of the political persuasion of the Parliamentary Secretary would hold that road haulage should be a free-for-all, that the old law of supply and demand should be observed, that a man should be free to choose whatever vehicles he liked for the transport of his goods, and that all a licensing authority should be required to do would be to ensure that the vehicles were good vehicles and that the firms were of good standing. Someone of a different political outlook might suggest that all road haulage should be brought under a public authority.
A good case could be made out for either solution, but no case at all can be made out for the present system, which involves waste of time and money—public money—and which, at the moment, quite evidently works in favour of this cartel of giant hauliers, very much against the small man, and very much against the public interest. It is high time that an inquiry was made and, pending that inquiry, all this evidence—and I am sure that there is much more of it, although there is no time to go into it now—should be sent to the Geddes Committee.

12.7 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) has raised a matter of considerable public interest, and he has done so in a comparatively reasonable and thoughtful way; not so much, at least to begin with, in a spirit of


criticism as in a spirit of inquiry. He was trying to find out the best thing to do, and probably the easiest way for me to deal with his points is to start by explaining how the present arrangements originated.
As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the carriers' licensing system was set up ay the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, following the recommendations of the Conference on Rail and Road Transport which was presided over by Sir Arthur Salter, as he then was he is now Lord Salter. The system had two purposes. Its first purpose was to protect the railways—and that purpose will be of interest to the hon. Member in present circumstances—which were burdened then with obligations such as that of common carrier, from unfair competition by road carriers who did not have this obligation of being common carriers. The second purpose was to bring some order and regulation into the public road haulage industry, where some operators paid scant attention to safety or to labour standards.
This system, which started in the 'thirties, has remained substantially unchanged ever since. It was retained during nationalisation for those parts of the industry which were not taken over, and it is now embodied in the Road Traffic Act, 1960. The decision in the original Act to regulate supply in accordance with demand necessarily implied some measure of restraint on full competition, as the hon. Gentleman recognised. The object was to produce an orderly road haulage industry which, in conjunction with the railways and other forms of transport, could provide users of goods transport with a reliable and co-ordinated service. That was the object, and as a safeguard against any monopolistic tendencies—of which the hon. Gentleman is afraid—that might arise, there was, and is, freedom for traders to operate their own vehicles under C licences.
It is interesting to note that road haulage has remained even today, in spite of what the hon. Member has said, predominantly an industry of small units where, within the limits imposed by the licensing system, competition is very fierce indeed. I am told that the average fleet of public hauliers is less

than five vehicles. The scale of the industry, therefore, is rather small.

Mr. Delargy: I should have made clear that I am referring to open A licences. I agree that there are plenty of C licenses under which a person can carry his own goods. Whereas the average may be five, six or seven vehicles the firms which I have mentioned have hundreds.

Mr. Galbraith: I am not saying that these firms do not have hundreds of vehicles. Nevertheless, this is predominantly an industry of small men. It may be that the hon. Member is considering oil-carrying work and bulk carrying which is a specialist industry. It may be that in that case there are more large firms than there are generally but I have not the figures with me. As we are talking about an industry of small unit;—

Mr. Delargy: The emphasis is on bulk liquid haulage.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member is now saying that he is criticising bulk liquid carrying, but the criticism which he has made so far has been a general criticism of the way in which the licensing authorities operate and the nature and extent of the size of the units in that industry. I ought to tell the hon. Member that the facts as I have them are not the same as his, that is it is predominantly an industry of small not large units.

Mr. Delargy: I based all my case on a hearing of a licensing authority and I said at the beginning that this was a hearing where a firm was applying to carry bulk liquids. My case is about liquid haulage.

Mr. Galbraith: We may agree to differ on this. We shall see from the record whether the hon. Member is right or I am right. He has said that this was an industry of a number of large units. I say that it is one of small units.
The task of administering this system was laid on the chairman of the Traffic Commissioners. These were regional bodies which had been set up earlier to license bus services. As licensing authorities they had an independent quasi-judicial status. A duty was laid


upon them to publish all applications to carry goods for hire or reward and to consider objections made by other carriers, including the railways, on the grounds that existing facilities were adequate. About one-third of the objections in many areas are made by the railways and not by other motor firms. For the purpose of hearing applications and objections, the licensing authorities were given power to hold public inquiries and a channel of appeal was provided to an independent tribunal and thence to the courts if necessary.
This gives the historic background to the situation as we find it today. I deal now with some of the specific points that the hon. Member made. He referred to the detail into which objectors entered when opposing an application. It seems to me that there is a real dilemma here. An essential purpose of the licensing system, as I have said, is to regulate the supply of public haulage to the demand. If the licensing authorities are to do this, they must have information about the circumstances surrounding an application to put that extra lorry capacity on to the roads. Furthermore, if they are to come to fair decisions, and, most important, are to be seen to come to fair decisions, this information must inevitably be put before them openly and be subject to full scrutiny and the test of cross-examination by interested parties to the case. It would be extremely difficult to limit the extent of this without running the risk of doing one or other of the parties an injustice, and if inquiries of this kind do occur it is obvious that in the course of time this will enable competing hauliers to acquire a very complete knowledge of one another's operations. But I do not really think that that can be avoided.
The hon. Gentleman also seemed to be suggesting that it was out of place for licensing courts to have legal trappings or for the parties to employ counsel.

Mr. Delargy: I said nothing of the kind.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman said there were a lot of counsel there and, in saying that, I thought he was being critical.

Mr. Delargy: Nonsense. I was merely stating a fact.

Mr. Galbraith: Presumably the hon. Gentleman was stating a fact with which he did not agree.

Mr. Delargy: Certainly not.

Mr. Galbraith: At any rate, this is a criticism which is made sometimes and I intend to take this opportunity which the hon. Gentleman has kindly provided of answering it. The licensing authorities have to follow legal procedure because they pursue the same fundamental aims as the courts—that is, to decide fairly and openly matters where the interests and possibly the evidence of those concerned may conflict. I do not think the hon. Gentleman will criticise me for dealing with something which he has said. Certainly he did not say it tonight, but he wrote an article in the Sunday Citizen in which he referred to this as a "Star Chamber inquiry." I was a little surprised by these words. I know we are all inclined to a little exuberance on a Sunday—

Mr. Delargy: Would the hon. Gentleman quote the entire context?

Mr. Galbraith: I wish the hon. Gentleman would let me finish my speech.

Mr. Delargy: The hon. Gentleman has quoted from my article—

Mr. Galbraith: I am dealing with this article.

Mr. Delargy: The hon. Gentleman has quoted three words.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman said it is a Star Chamber inquiry. I was a little surprised by these words. I turned to Professor Maitland's Constitutional History, and at page 263 I find that he said:
Star Chamber was a court of politicians enforcing a policy; not a court of judges administering the law.
I think it is quite clear that the Commissioners are more akin to magistrates or judges than politicians and that they are, in fact, administering the law which we passed in this House.
The hon. Gentleman may, however, be interested to know that the Franks Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries examined the working of the goods licensing courts in 1957 and made no recommendations for changing


their procedure. The licensing authorities nowadays conduct their business under the continual scrutiny of the Council on Tribunals set up under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, and the Council has never criticised their proceedings which, I think, is a very considerable tribute to the way in which they carry out their duties.
It is perfectly true that the Salter Conference hoped that legal representation would not be necessary, but as the licensing system is based on an Act of Parliament, legal interpretation, it seems to me, is unavoidable. Indeed, this is recognised by the fact that there is an appeal to the courts. When one remembers that considerable sums of money may be involved, it would surely he quite wrong to restrict the manner in which applicants or objectors could be represented. A man, after all, might be a very good haulier but a poor advocate. Nevertheless an applicant is, of course, free to present his own case if he wishes, and I know that licensing authorities take particular pains to assist, so far as is proper, those who choose to do this.
Another suggestion that the hon. Gentleman made was that hauliers in particular fields may establish a ring—he did not actually use the word "ring", but I think that is what he intended; he used another word which escapes my memory for the moment—

Mr. Delargy: Cartel.

Mr. Galbraith: Yes, a cartel—by agreeing to make concerted objections to the entry of newcomers, but they do not make these objections to each other's applications. I do not deny for a moment that this is a possibility, but it is a possibility which is inherent in almost any scheme for restricting entry to an industry. It is important to remember that, whatever the weight of objections to an application may be, the prime consideration to which the licensing authority must have regard under the Act is the public interest as represented primarily by the interests of the users of transport, not the suppliers.
It follows, therefore, that an application will by no means be refused merely because numerous objections against it are lodged by competing operators. This

is a point which I should like the hon. Gentleman to accept.
The hon. Gentleman asked also about the expense of the system. He has put down some Parliamentary Questions on the subject. I hope that I shall be able to deal with this matter satisfactorily. The administrative costs amount to just under £1 million a year, but this is not all attributable to the operation of the licensing courts as such. As I said earlier, licensing is concerned with safety as well as with supply and demand, and an important element in the cost is the salary of the safety enforcement staff. This comes to nearly £200,000 a year. However, the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the licensing system is self-financing and that the fees cover all the costs. There is no charge at all to public funds because of the work which the licensing courts do.
To sum up, Parliament has given the licensing authorities a difficult task to do and—I think that the hon. Gentleman probably recognises this—they carry it out conscientiously and capably. There can be little doubt that they and their predecessors have served the country very well over the past thirty years. Whether the time has now come when the system which they administer should be changed is another matter.
As the House knows—the hon. Gentleman referred to this in his speech—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport last year appointed a small but high-level independent committee under the chairmanship of Lord Geddes to examine this matter. The committee is still taking evidence, and it is too early yet to say when it will report because this is a very complicated matter. In the meantime, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me tonight to prejudice in any way what the committee may say either about the fundamentals of the system or about the methods by which it is currently administered by the licensing authorities, since all these matters lie fairly and squarely within the terms of reference of the committee.
However, it will be clear to anyone who has followed the evidence so far put to the committee and which has been subsequently published that there exists a very wide diversity of views


among responsible and knowledgeable people about carriers' licensing. Some people think that licensing should be abolished altogether. Others think that the present system should be maintained but should be fundamentally changed. Others yet again think that the system has stood the test of time and it should be left substantially undisturbed. Some think that it has become too legally set. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I got him wrong, but I thought that this was his view. Anyway, if he does not take this view, it is a view which many people hold, that the system has become too set in legal form.
However, in spite of this, I have seen no evidence which has challenged the fairness and personal competence of the licensing authorities in administering the system within the framework laid down for them by Parliament. It is true that

the licensing authorities themselves enjoy the confidence and respect of those with whom they deal to a very marked extent.
Whatever, therefore, comes out of the Geddes Committee report—and because it is still sitting I cannot make any comment on the various views I have mentioned tonight and about which the Committee may have something to say—there is one thing in which we can all take pride, and that is our general agreement on the fairness with which the Licensing Courts—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER, adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Twelve o'clock.